On the agenda: Trenton meeting — Data Center (Jul 27)

Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Agenda Packet
Monday, July 27, 2026 @ 7:00 PM
Mr. Tim Johnson
Mr. William Steele
Member/Council Rep
Vice-Chair

Mr. Ted Farmer
Member

Mr. Paul McSorley
Member

Mr. Josh Vinson
Member

1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
4. Conflict of Interest Statement
Prior to consideration of the following agenda items, each member should examine the agenda to
determine whether he or she has any conflict of interest with any agenda item.
If so, please note the agenda item for which you intend to abstain or recuse yourself as an exception
to the upcoming motion. You may not discuss or vote on any item you have a conflict of interest with
or act in any way to influence the deliberation or vote.

Motion: I move that a note be made upon the minutes that each member of the BZA was
furnished with a copy of the agenda prior to its being considered at this meeting, and that, with
the exception of the items noted, no member has identified any conflict of interest regarding any
agenda item.

5. Approval of Past Meeting Minutes: June 29, 2026
6. Hearings on BZA Applications:
Agenda Item # 1 – Dimensional Variance Request - Fence Placement in a Side Yard
Agenda Item # 2 – Request to Amend By-Laws - Regular Meeting Start Time from 7:00 PM to6:00 PM.

7. Adjourn for Deliberation of Cases
8. Reconvene for Decision of Cases
9. Audience of Public for Topics Unrelated to Those Addressed at the Hearing
10. Reports by Commission or City Administration
11. Date of Next Meeting: August 24, 2026
12. Adjournment

Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes
June 29, 2026

Call to Order
Chair TJ Johnson called the regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals to order at
approximately 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Planning and Zoning Administrator Randy Bridge called the roll. The following members were
present:
•
•
•

Chair TJ Johnson
Vice-Chair Mr. Steele
Mr. McSorley

•
•

Mr. Farmer
Mr. Vinson

With all members present, a quorum was established.

Conflict of Interest Statement
Chair Johnson read the Board's Conflict of Interest Statement. A motion to accept the Conflictof-Interest Statement was made by Chair Johnson that was seconded by Mr. Vinson.
The motion carried by a 5-0 vote.
Approval of Minutes
Chair Johnson called for approval of the March 23, 2026, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting
minutes. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Chair Johnson and seconded by Mr.
McSorley. The motion carried by a 5-0 vote.
Agenda Item #1
Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of the Prologis Data Center Site Plan
City Attorney Nick Ziepfel opened the hearing by outlining the Board's role in hearing the
appeal and the applicable standard of review. He advised that the Board's responsibility was to
determine whether the Planning Commission's decision was unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary,
capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by a preponderance of substantial, reliable, and
probative evidence. Mr. Ziepfel then reviewed the hearing procedures before recognizing Lorie
Blankenship, appellant, to present her appeal.
Appellant's Testimony
Ms. Blankenship argued that the Planning Commission failed to properly apply the City's zoning
regulations when approving the Prologis Trenton Data Center Campus site plan. She stated that
the Commission should have considered the general zoning provisions contained in Section
1240.02 together with the specific site plan review standards contained in Section 1266.

1

She maintained that additional review of traffic impacts, environmental concerns, and impacts
upon neighboring properties should have been completed before approval of the site plan.
Ms. Blankenship also challenged the notice provided for the March 30, 2026, Planning
Commission meeting. She stated that although the official agenda reflected the revised 6:00
p.m. meeting time, the City's online calendar continued to list the meeting at 7:00 p.m., causing
confusion among residents wishing to attend. She believed the inconsistent notice prevented
members of the public from participating in the meeting.
Ms. Blankenship questioned the adequacy of the traffic impact study, stating it did not
sufficiently evaluate traffic along Wayne Madison Road and Kennel Road.
She also expressed concerns regarding generator noise, environmental impacts, the City's
aquifer, and whether additional environmental, hydrological, and technical studies should have
been completed before approval. She noted that previous industrial developments had
undergone additional technical review and believed the same level of review should have been
required for the data center.
Ms. Blankenship requested that the Board reverse the Planning Commission's approval and
send the plans back for additional review and a properly noticed hearing.
Board Questions to the Appellant
Mr. McSorley asked whether Ms. Blankenship had spoken with anyone from the Planning
Commission before or after its meeting. Ms. Blankenship replied that she had not.
Mr. McSorley asked whether she attended the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Blankenship
stated that confusion over the meeting's revised start time prevented her attendance and
explained that the meeting had concluded before she arrived.
Mr. McSorley also asked approximately how far her residence was located from the
development. Ms. Blankenship stated that it was slightly less than one mile away by roadway.
The Board had no further questions.
City's Response
City Attorney Nick Ziepfel summarized the City's written staff report and recommended that the
Board affirm the Planning Commission's March 30, 2026, approval of the site plan.
Mr. Ziepfel stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the application under Section 1266 of
the City's Zoning Code and that the appellant had not demonstrated that the Commission acted
in an unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported manner.
Addressing the Open Meetings Act concerns, Mr. Ziepfel stated that the Planning Commission
meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that the official agenda reflected the revised
meeting time. He noted that site plan review is an administrative proceeding rather than a
public hearing and that public comment during administrative reviews is discretionary.

2

Mr. Ziepfel summarized the Planning Commission's review process and stated that Section 1266
governed the Commission's consideration of the application. He noted that engineering review,
utility approvals, environmental permits, and other technical matters continue through separate
regulatory processes following site plan approval.
Mr. Ziepfel also stated that the Planning Commission requested additional information from the
developer during its review, including a traffic impact study and acoustical evaluation, before
determining sufficient information had been submitted to approve the site plan.
Board Questions Directed to the City
Mr. McSorley asked whether the acoustical evaluation addressed the data center itself. Mr.
Ziepfel confirmed that it did.
Mr. McSorley also questioned references within the acoustical study concerning sound
frequencies and decibel levels and asked whether additional information regarding the study
was available.
He further asked whether Ohio EPA wastewater and stormwater permits had been issued and
whether those approvals were considered during the Planning Commission's review.
Mr. Ziepfel stated that environmental permits are administered by the Ohio EPA and Butler
County through separate regulatory processes and are outside the scope of the City's site plan
review.
Mr. Farmer asked why public comment was not accepted during the Planning Commission
meeting. Mr. Ziepfel responded that the meeting involved an administrative site plan review
rather than a public hearing and that acceptance of public comment was left to the discretion of
the Planning Commission Chair.
Ms. Blankenship briefly reiterates her concerns regarding generator noise and the need for
additional technical studies.
Interested Party's Testimony
Chris Ingram, counsel for Prologis Trenton Data Center Campus, LLC, requested that all
individuals providing testimony be sworn due to the quasi-judicial nature of the proceedings.
Chair Johnson administered the oath to all individuals who had testified or intended to testify.
Mr. Ingram presented arguments on behalf of the interested party. He argued that the appeal
should be dismissed because the appellant lacked standing as she was not directly and
adversely affected by the Planning Commission's administrative decision. He further argued that
substantial construction had commenced under valid permits and approvals, rendering the
appeal moot.

3

Mr. Ingram maintained that the Planning Commission's responsibility was limited to determining
whether the site plan complied with the City's zoning regulations and that the appellant failed to
identify any provision of the Zoning Code violated by the approved plan.
Mr. Ingram introduced Matthew Garver, Director of Development Services for Prologis and a
licensed professional engineer.
Mr. Garver testified that Prologis owned the property, summarized the project's permitting
history, and confirmed that construction had begun. He stated that multiple federal, state,
county, and local approvals had been obtained.
Mr. Garver also discussed the acoustical evaluation and testified that the modeled sound
contours associated with the development did not extend to the appellant's property.
Board Questions Directed to the Interested Party
Mr. McSorley asked Mr. Garver about the project's Construction Stormwater General Permit,
Ohio EPA Permit to Install, erosion control requirements, wastewater management, and the
agencies responsible for monitoring environmental compliance.
Mr. Garver stated that construction stormwater is regulated through the Ohio EPA's NPDES
Construction Stormwater General Permit together with Butler County erosion control
inspections. He explained that wastewater from the completed facility will be discharged into
the City's sanitary sewer system for treatment through Butler County's wastewater facilities.
He also stated that the Construction Stormwater General Permit terminates after construction is
complete and the site has been stabilized.
The Board had no further questions.
Appellant's Rebuttal
Ms. Blankenship reiterated concerns regarding generator noise, increased traffic along First
Street, and the adequacy of the acoustical evaluation.
She questioned the timing of permits issued for the project and discussed noise levels
reportedly observed at similar data center facilities.
Responding to the interested party's arguments, Ms. Blankenship stated that increased
construction traffic, potential noise impacts, and other project-related effects directly impacted
her property and surrounding neighborhood.
She again expressed concerns regarding emergency generator operations, the City's aquifer,
and the inability of residents to address the Planning Commission before approval of the site
plan.

4

Mr. McSorley asked whether construction traffic concerns had been reported to the Trenton
Police Department. Ms. Blankenship stated that complaints had been made to both the Police
Department and City Council.
She also advised the Board that she intended to file a written response to the Motion to Dismiss.
Deliberations
Following the conclusion of testimony, Chair Johnson entertained a motion to recess for
deliberations. Mr. Steele moved to recess into deliberations and Mr. McSorley seconded the
motion.
Roll Call Vote
• Johnson — Yes
• Vinson — Yes
• Steele — Yes
• McSorley — Yes
• Farmer — Yes
Motion carried 5-0. The Board recessed to deliberate and consider the testimony, documentary
evidence, written submissions, and arguments presented during the hearing.
Following deliberations, the Board returned to open session. Mr. Steele moved to reconvene,
and Mr. McSorley seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
• McSorley — Yes
• Steele — Yes
• Johnson — Yes
Motion carried 5-0.

•
•

Farmer — Yes
Vinson — Yes

Board Action
Upon returning to open session, Chair Johnson stated that after considering the testimony,
evidence, and applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, he would entertain a motion.
Chair Johnson moved to affirm the Planning Commission's March 30, 2026, approval of the
Prologis Trenton Data Center Campus site plan and dismiss the appeal and Mr. Farmer seconded
the motion.
Roll Call Vote
• McSorley — Yes
• Steele — Yes
• Johnson — Yes
• Farmer — Yes
• Vinson — Yes
Motion carried 5-0. The Board affirmed the Planning Commission's March 30, 2026, approval of
the Prologis Trenton Data Center Campus site plan and dismissed the appeal.

5

Other Business
Chair Johnson asked whether there was any additional business before the Board. There were no
public comments unrelated to the hearing and no reports from the Board or City Administration.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Randy Bridge announced that the next regularly scheduled
Board of Zoning Appeals meeting would be held on July 27, 2026.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson motioned to adjourn, and Mr. McSorley
seconded.
Roll Call Vote
• Vinson — Yes
• Farmer — Yes
• Johnson — Yes
Motion carried 5-0.

•
•

Steele — Yes
McSorley — Yes

The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.

END OF MINUTES

6

BZA Case #072726A
Staff Report

Property Address: 411 N. First Street
Parcel Number: R8000003000098

Agenda Item #1
Subject: Dimensional Variance – Fence Placement in Side Yard
Applicant: Terry Saxton
Address: 411 N. First Street

To:
Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Randy Bridge, Planning and Zoning Administrator
Date: Monday, July 20, 2026

PROPOSED REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance from Section 1256.11(d)(2) of the City of Trenton Codified
Ordinances to allow approximately 60 feet of a residential fence to be constructed within the required side
yard. No portion of the proposed fence would be located within the required front yard.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood and is developed with a singlefamily residence.
On June 24, 2026, the applicant submitted a fence permit application proposing to construct a portion of a
residential fence within the required side yard. The application was denied because Section 1256.11(d)(2) limits
residential fences to the rear yard.
The applicant subsequently filed a dimensional variance request. According to the application, the proposed
fence is intended to enclose the side and rear yard, provide privacy for the rear patio, provide direct access
from the side entrance of the residence, and connect to an existing fence.
ZONING CODE
Section 1256.11(d)(2): Fences shall only be located in the rear yard except as otherwise permitted in that
section.
SITE ANALYSIS
The subject property is developed with a single-family residence on an interior residential lot.
The aerial photograph below identifies the required front, side, and rear yards and illustrates the proposed
fence location. The fence would connect to an existing fence, creating one continuous enclosed yard that
includes the side and rear portions of the property.
Approximately 60 feet of the proposed fence would be located within the required side yard and requires the
requested variance. No portion of the fence would extend into the required front yard.

1

BZA Case #072726A
Staff Report

Property Address: 411 N. First Street
Parcel Number: R8000003000098

Image #1 - Aerial Photograph

The aerial photograph illustrates the property's yard configuration. The rear yard is outlined in green, the side yard in purple, and
the front yard in black. The proposed fence alignment is shown in red and identifies the portion of the fence requiring the
requested dimensional variance.

Image #2 – Side Yard

View looking southeast along the side of the residence. The
photograph depicts the side yard where the applicant proposes
to construct approximately 50 feet of fencing requiring the
requested dimensional variance.

Image #3 – Rear Yard

View of the rear patio, existing mature tree, and adjacent side yard. This photograph
illustrates the existing site conditions and the area proposed to be enclosed by the
requested fence.

2

BZA Case #072726A
Staff Report

Property Address: 411 N. First Street
Parcel Number: R8000003000098

STAFF ANALYSIS
Section 1256.11(d)(2) limits residential fences to the rear yard. The applicant is requesting a dimensional
variance to allow approximately 60 feet of the proposed fence to be located within the required side yard.
Based on the application materials and site inspection, the existing layout of the property presents practical
difficulties in complying with the code.
The location of the residence, rear patio, side entrance, and existing site improvements limits the area available
for a code-compliant fence. Restricting the fence to the rear yard would leave a substantially smaller enclosed
yard and would not provide direct access from the side entrance to the fenced area.
The proposed fence will connect to an existing fence, creating one continuous enclosed yard. The proposed
location also preserves the existing mature tree while remaining outside the required front yard. Staff found no
evidence that the request would interfere with public rights-of-way, drainage, utilities, emergency access, or
other public infrastructure.
Based on the application materials and site inspection, staff find that the existing layout of the property creates
practical difficulties in complying with Section 1256.11(d)(2).
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
• The applicant is requesting an approximately 60-foot dimensional variance from Section 1256.11(d)(2) to
allow a portion of a residential fence to be located within the required side yard.
• The location of the residence, rear patio, side entrance, and existing site improvements limit the area
available for a fence that complies with the rear yard requirement.
• An existing mature tree is located within the proposed fenced area and has influenced the proposed fence
layout.
• The need for the variance results from the existing development of the property and was not created by
any unlawful act of the property owner.
• The proposed fence will remain outside the required front yard and will connect to an existing fence,
creating one continuously enclosed yard.
• Staff found no evidence that the proposed fence would interfere with public rights-of-way, utilities,
drainage, emergency access, or other public infrastructure.
• The proposed fence is consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood and is not expected to
change the character of the area.
• The requested variance is limited to the portion of the fence located within the required side yard and
represents the minimum relief necessary to accommodate the proposed fence location.

3

BZA Case #072726A
Staff Report

Property Address: 411 N. First Street
Parcel Number: R8000003000098

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff have reviewed the application, supporting materials, and the existing site conditions and finds that the
request meets the City's practical difficulties standard for a dimensional variance.
The existing layout of the property limits the ability to construct a fence entirely within the required rear yard.
The proposed fence will remain outside the required front yard and is not expected to adversely affect
neighboring properties or public infrastructure.
Staff recommend approval of the requested dimensional variance, subject to below:
Condition: The proposed fence shall not obstruct any public utility easements and shall be removed or
relocated if required for utility maintenance, drainage improvements, or other lawful public purposes.
VARIANCE CRITERIA ANALYSIS
Before taking action on this request, the Board must consider the variance criteria established in the City of
Trenton Codified Ordinances. The following analysis is provided to assist the Board in making its findings.
(1) The requested variance is justified by a practical difficulty.
The location of the residence, rear patio, side entrance, and existing site improvements limits the area
available for a code-compliant fence. These existing conditions create practical difficulty in constructing a
functional enclosed yard while complying with Section 1256.11(d)(2).
(2) The practical difficulty was not created by the unlawful acts or omissions of any owner or tenant.
The need for variance results from the existing layout and development of the property. There is no
evidence the practical difficulty was created through any unlawful act or omission of the property owner.
(3) The practical difficulty does not commonly occur in any neighborhood in the City having the same
zoning classification.
Although fencing is common throughout residential neighborhoods, the combination of the residence
location, rear patio, side entrance, and existing site improvements is unique to this property and
contributes to the need for the requested variance.
(4) Approval of the variance would not materially damage the character of the neighborhood.
The proposed fence is consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood and is not expected to
have an adverse effect on surrounding properties.
(5) Approval of the variance would not violate a significant legislative purpose of the Zoning Code.
The proposed fence remains outside the required front yard and maintains the overall intent of the
residential fencing regulations while addressing the property's existing site conditions.
(6) Approval of the variance would not reduce the efficiency of emergency services or adversely affect
public services.
Staff found no evidence the proposed fence would interfere with emergency access, drainage, utilities,
public rights-of-way, or other public infrastructure.
4

BZA Case #072726A
Staff Report

Property Address: 411 N. First Street
Parcel Number: R8000003000098

(7) There is no reasonable solution other than a variance, and the variance requested is the least that
can reasonably reduce the practical difficulty.
Limiting the fence to the required rear yard would substantially reduce the enclosed yard area available to
the property owner. The requested variance is limited to the portion of the fence extending into the side
yard and represents the minimum relief necessary to accommodate the proposed fence location.

END OF STAFF REPORT

Attachments:
1. City Code Section 1256.11 Fences, Walls and Hedges
2. Denial Letter for Fence Permit
3. Board of Zoning Appeals Application Submitted by Applicant
4. Legal Advertisement
5

Attachment #1

Attachment #2
Permit Application #A26-0253 Location:411 N First - by Dee Schatzle - Planning and
Zoning Assistant at June 24, 2026 09:56AM
Status: Rejected

Activity Type: Information

Activity Date: 06/24/2026

EMAIL TO: [email protected]
Terry, After review of the submitted fence permit application and site plan, the proposed
fence location does not comply with the requirements of Section 1256.11 of the Trenton
Codified Ordinances. Specifically, the proposed fence location is within an area where
fencing is prohibited or does not meet the required setback/location standards established
by the City's zoning regulations.

1256.11 FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES.

(d) Residential Interior Lot Fencing.

(2) Fences shall only be located in the rear yard except as otherwise permitted in this
section.

I have attached a copy of the BZA form that you will need to fill out and return to the City
building, if you are interested in applying for a variance. If you have any questions or need
assistance with this, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you, Dee

Dee Schatzle
Trenton
Planning and Zoning Assistant
[email protected]
513-428-0176

Attachment #3

072726A

Attachment #4
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF TRENTON BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Published in the July 16, 2026
Hamilton Journal News

Notice is hereby given that the City of Trenton Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public
hearing on Monday, July 27, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will take place at Trenton City Hall,
11 East State Street, Trenton, Ohio.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application requesting approval for the
placement of fence within a non-permitted yard and for the discussion surrounding the
Board of Zoning Appeals By-Laws.
The meeting is open to the public.

BZA Case #072726B
Staff Report - Agenda Item #2

Board of Zoning Appeals Policies and Procedures - AMENDMENT
Change Meeting Start Time from 7:00 PM to 6:00 PM

Agenda Item #2
Subject: Amendment to the BZA Policies and Procedures – Change to Regular Meeting Start Time
Applicant: N/A - Board Member Review
Address: 11 E. State Street

To:
Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Randy Bridge, Planning and Zoning Administrator
Date: Monday, July 20, 2026

Introduction
This agenda item is being presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals for consideration of an amendment to the
Board's Policies and Procedures regarding the start time of its regular meetings. The proposed amendment
would revise Article 7, Section 7.02 to change the regular meeting start time from 7:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. No
other amendments to the Policies and Procedures are proposed.
Overview of the Policies and Procedures
The Board of Zoning Appeals Policies and Procedures establish the administrative framework for conducting
the Board's meetings and hearings. The document supplements the City Charter, Codified Ordinances, and
applicable provisions of the Ohio Revised Code by establishing procedures for the orderly administration of
Board business.
Among other provisions, the Policies and Procedures address:
•
•
•
•
•

The Board's powers and duties.
Regular and special meeting procedures.
Quorum and voting requirements.
Public hearing procedures.
Administrative appeals and variance applications.

•
•
•
•

Agenda preparation and application deadlines.
Ethical standards and conflicts of interest.
Executive session procedures.
Amendments to the Policies and Procedures.

Applicable Authority
Article 17 of the Board of Zoning Appeals Policies and Procedures provides that the Policies and Procedures
may be amended by a majority vote of the Board, provided the proposed amendment is presented in writing at
a regular or special meeting and action is taken at a subsequent regular or special meeting.
Staff Review
Staff have reviewed the proposed amendment and supports changing the regular meeting start time to 6:00
P.M. Beginning regular meetings one hour earlier will provide additional time for public hearings, Board
discussion, and deliberation while allowing meetings to conclude earlier in the evening.
Attachments:
1. Board of Zoning Appeals Policies and Procedures

Adopted July 24, 2023

CITY OF TRENTON
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Article 1.

Attachment #1

Name

The name of the board of zoning appeals shall be the “City of Trenton Board of Zoning Appeals” (hereinafter, the
“Board of Zoning Appeals” or “Board”).
Article 2.

Purpose

The purpose of these Policies and Procedures is to assist the Board of Zoning Appeals in exercising the powers and
duties conferred upon it by Article VI of the Charter of the City of Trenton, Ohio (the “City”) adopted on June 15, 1971
and any amendments thereto (the “Charter”).
Article 3.

Preemption by Charter, the Code of Ordinances, and the Ohio Revised Code

To the extent that these Policies and Procedures are inconsistent or in conflict with the Charter, the Ohio Revised
Code and/or the Code of Ordinances of the City, then, in such a case, the Charter, the Code of Ordinances, and the Ohio
Revised Code, in that order, shall preempt these Policies and Procedures.
Article 4.

Location

The Board offices shall be located in the City of Trenton Civic Hall, located at 11 East State Street, Trenton, Ohio
45067.
Article 5.

Powers And Duties

Section 5.01 General. The Board shall have all the powers granted to it under the Charter and perform all the
duties imposed upon it under the Charter. In addition, the Board shall have all the powers granted to, and perform all the
duties imposed upon, boards of zoning appeals by the laws of Ohio, including all statutes now or hereafter enacted.
Section 5.02 Administrative Appeal. An administrative appeal of a decision of the Zoning Administrator’s or
Planning Commission’s order, requirement, decision or determination in the enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning
Code may be taken to the Board by any person directly and adversely affected, or by any officer of the City acting within
the scope of employment.
Section 5.03 Dimensional Variance. The Board shall hear and decide applications for a variance from the
dimensional standards applicable to lots, buildings and structures, consistent with Section 1246.04 of the Zoning Code. In
no case may the Board have authority to grant a variance as to use.
Article 6.

Appointment and Terms of Members

The Board shall consist of 5 electors of the City (each, a “Member” and collectively, the “Members”), appointed
by City Council to serve 4-year overlapping terms of office. City Council shall fill all vacancies by appointment for the
unexpired term.
Article 7.

Meetings

Section 7.01 Open Meetings. All Board meetings shall be open to the public at all times, unless the subject
matter is required to be kept confidential or is specifically excepted by Federal or state law. No resolution, rule, regulation,
or formal action shall be adopted at any executive session unless the subject matter is required to be kept confidential or is
specifically excepted by Federal or state law.

-1-

Section 7.02 Regular and Special Meetings. The Board shall regularly meet at 7:00 P.M. on the fourth Monday
of each month, as needed, at the Trenton Civic Hall, or at some other place or by remote communications as designated by
the Board with advance notice, which shall include teleconference, video conference, or any other similar electronic
technology, to the extent required or permitted under applicable law. The City Zoning Administrator or the Board, by a
majority vote of its Members, may schedule special meetings. The recommended, but not required, order of business for
meetings is:
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting
5. Hearings on Applications as Set Forth in Section 9.02 of these Policies and Procedures
6. Adjourn for Deliberation of Cases
7. Reconvene for Decision of Cases
8. Audience of Public for Topics Unrelated to Those Addressed at Hearing
9. Board and/or City Administrator Reports
10. Notice of Other Meetings or Events
11. Adjournment
Section 7.03 Quorum. A quorum must be present, either in person or participating remotely, for public
hearings. A quorum shall consist of three (3) or more Board Members, and no action may be taken in the absence of a
quorum except to adjourn the meeting, including agenda items and scheduled public hearings, to a subsequent date.
Section 7.04 Voting. Except as otherwise set forth in these Policies and Procedures and the Charter, the
affirmative vote of a majority of those Members present shall be necessary for the adoption of any motion or any other
general matter. Voting, except on procedural motions, shall be by roll call of the ayes and nays and shall be recorded in the
minutes. No decision of an officer of the City in the enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Code shall be overruled
by the Board except by the affirmative vote of 4 Members of the Board.
Section 7.05 Chairperson. The Members shall elect one of its Members as a Chairperson of the Board who
shall have wide discretion in conducting all hearings and meetings. The Chairperson shall have the power to interrupt
arguments at any time in the interest of expediting the orderly disposition of the business at hand. If there are a large number
of people desiring to speak, a reasonable time limit may be established by the Chairperson. The Chairperson shall be
obligated to prevent any person from unduly consuming the Board’s time, and may call for a vote or move on the other
agenda items. The Chairperson may change the order of business whenever it is deemed advisable to do so, either before
or during the progress of the meeting. The Chairperson may call for discussion on an item before the Board either before or
after a motion is made. Voting, except on procedural motions, shall be by roll call of the ayes and nays and shall be recorded
in the minutes. The Chairperson may be removed by the Members at any time, with or without cause, by the majority vote
of the Members.
Section 7.06 Minutes. Minutes of all meetings shall be kept and the complete files of proceedings and actions
taken in connection therewith shall be considered a public record and filed. The Zoning Administrator or his or her designee
shall provide each Board Member with a draft of minutes of the previous meeting. These minutes shall be considered for
approval by the Board at a regularly scheduled public meeting and upon approval shall become part of the official record
of action of the Board. Minutes shall also be provided as correspondence to Council for general information (and uploading
to the City’s website is an acceptable format).
Article 8.

Agenda and Applications

Section 8.01 Copy of Agenda. Typically, a copy of the agenda for every regular meeting of the Board should
be sent to each Board Member not fewer than seven (7) days prior to the date of the meeting (email is an acceptable mode
of transmission). If available, staff reports will be made available to applicants and the public at the same time or soon
thereafter. In addition, written comments by interested parties shall be distributed to Board Members, staff, applicants, and
other deemed interested parties as such become available.

-2-

Section 8.02 Application for Administrative Appeal. To apply for an administrative appeal, the applicant must
first have: (1) received written denial of a Zoning Certificate application by the Zoning Administrator or a conditional use
application by the Planning Commission; or (2) received a decision from the Planning Commission regarding a
nonresidential or multi-family use under Chapter 1266 of the City Code of Ordinances. If appealing a decision of the Zoning
Administrator, the application for an administrative appeal must be filed with the Zoning Administrator and the Board not
longer than 20 days after the actual mailing date of the written denial. If appealing a decision of the Planning Commission
regarding a condition use application, the application for an administrative appeal must be filed with the Planning
Commission and the Board not longer than 20 days after the actual mailing date of the written denial. If appealing a decision
of the Planning Commission regarding a nonresidential or multi-family use under Chapter 1266 of the City Code of
Ordinances, the application for an administrative appeal must be filed with the Planning Commission and the Board not
longer than 30 days after such decision is rendered by the Planning Commission.
The application for an administrative appeal must be filed on forms provided by the City accompanied by payment
of any fees for the administrative appeal application. No application for an administrative appeal will be placed on the
agenda of a regular Board meeting for hearing unless filed as described herein not less than 14 days prior to the meeting.
Section 8.03 Application for Dimensional Variance. To apply for a variance, the applicant must first have
received written denial of a Zoning Certificate application by the Zoning Administrator. The application for a variance shall
be filed with the Zoning Administrator not longer than 20 days after the actual mailing date of the written denial. The
application shall be filed on forms provided by the City accompanied by payment of any fees for the variance application. No
variance application will be placed on the agenda of a regular Board meeting for hearing unless filed as described herein
not less than 14 days prior to the meeting.
Article 9.

Hearings

Section 9.01 Public Hearing and Notice. The Board shall hold a public hearing on each filed administrative
appeal and variance. At least 10 days before any public hearing, the Board shall publish notice of the time and place of the
hearing and provide written notice of the hearing to the owners and/or tenants of property contiguous to and directly across
the street from the subject property. Failure of delivery of any or all of such notices, even if caused by error of the applicant
or the City, shall not invalidate any decision of the Board. Any party in interest may appear and be heard at the hearing in
person, by agent or by legal counsel. The Zoning Administrator may make recommendations to the Board as to any case
before it.
Section 9.02 Hearing Process. The Courts of Ohio have declared that hearings by boards of zoning appeals can
be quasi-judicial in nature. This means that Board Members must accept their role as if they are both judge and jury. The
critical part of this role requires that all evidence considered by the Board should be presented during an open meeting. This
allows all the Board Members and the public to hear (and see) the same evidence. Thus, while Members may debate the
significance of the evidence and even come to different conclusions in the hearings before them, there must be an
evenhanded opportunity to present and consider the evidence. To that end, the Board may consider the following rules for
its hearings:
1. The Board should only permit one speaker at a time. This provides for an orderly hearing and, if the applicant
has brought a court reporter, a good transcript in the event of any court challenge.
2. The Chairperson should determine whether and for how long the public may speak on any application.
3. It is important for the record to reflect any relevant portions of any City staff report that are relied upon.
4. All questions should be directed to the Chairperson.
The recommended, but not required, order of business for public hearings is:
1. The Chairperson (or court reporter, if present) will swear in all witnesses who intend to testify or participate in
the hearing.
2. City staff presents its Staff Report and provides testimony and/or witnesses, if applicable. Board members may
pose questions for staff and/or witnesses.

-3-

3. The Chairperson should ask City staff if they have any documents that they wish to have submitted for the
record. This includes, but is not limited to, the Staff Report, Application and supporting documents submitted
by applicant, and any documents received by the City and intended to rely upon (i.e., traffic study,
environmental report, zoning map and the like).
4. The Chairperson should offer City staff/witnesses for cross-examination to the applicant. Board members may
pose questions for staff and/or witnesses.
5. The Chairperson should accept any submitted documents.
6. The applicant may present his/her application and provides testimony and/or witnesses, if applicable. Board
members may pose questions for the applicant and/or witnesses.
7. The Chairperson should ask the applicant if they have any additional documents that they wish to have marked
for the record.
8. If the Board chooses to allow community participation, the Chairperson can open the floor to other witnesses
to take testimony. The Chairperson may, in his/her discretion, limit the amount of time allotted to each speaker.
Each speaker must place his/her name and address in the record.
9. The Board should discuss the matters addressed at hearing and take one of the following actions:
a. Adjourn the meeting temporarily to deliberate (as detailed in Section 9.03 below),
b. Enter executive session to discuss any legal matters with the City Attorney;
c. Enter executive session to discuss matters required to be kept confidential by federal law, federal rules, or
state statutes. If a Board Member is unsure as to whether something is confidential for purposes of this
exception, the Board Member is urged to pose the question to the City Attorney.
d. Move to table the hearing into a successive meeting(s) until all information needed to make an informed
decision has been obtained to its satisfaction and/or the Board has sufficient opportunity to review and
analyze the information, or
e. Take a vote on the issue at the hearing and issue a subsequent written decision.
Section 9.03 Deliberations and Decisions. Like all judicial bodies, the Board requires privacy to
deliberate, i.e., to evaluate and resolve, the disputes. This privacy frees the Board from the open pressure of the applicants
and public as it contemplates the case. Privacy provides an opportunity for candid discussion between Board Members on
the issues and the facts so the Board can reach a sound decision. Thus, the Board is authorized by Ohio law to adjourn its
meeting for the purpose of deliberating the merits of such applications
If the Board elects to do so, it will temporarily adjourn the meeting after all of public hearings have concluded.
Then, upon completion of deliberations, the Board will resume the meeting to discuss the application(s), vote on the same,
and address any items remaining on the agenda. The Board may delay voting on (or “table”) an applicant’s request if it
determines additional information from the applicant or the administrative staff is necessary.
While the applicant is not required to be present when the vote is taken, the applicant may stay in the chambers
during deliberations (as the Board adjourns to deliberate privately) and the meeting, once resumed, will remain open to the
public.
The Board shall render a written decision on any application for administrative appeal or variance to the applicant
and City Council no later than 60 days following the close of its hearing, unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant.
The decision of the Board shall be final, subject only to appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 9.04 Ex Parte Communications. Obviously communications (evidence) that may occur between a
person who is in favor (or against) the application, and one Member of the Board can be contrary to the fairness desired by
the judicial process. Just as a judge or jury is not supposed to be persuaded by a party to a lawsuit, without the other party
even knowing about it, so the owner of an adjoining property (who might be opposed) should not be allowed a chance to
privately persuade one or more Board Members outside of the public hearing process. Such one-on-one communications
are called ex parte communications and viewed as unfair and even illegal.

REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

-4-

Section 9.05 Criteria for Administrative Appeals. The Board decision of an administrative appeal will take
the form of a reversal, an affirmation, or a modification of the administrative decision being reviewed. Generally, the Board
may reverse or modify the administrative decision by majority vote only if the Board determines the administrative decision
being appealed was unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of
substantial, reliable, and probative evidence on the whole record. In any administrative appeal of a decision of an officer of
the City in the enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Code, the Board may only reverse or modify the administrative
decision only if 4 Members, by affirmative vote, determine the administrative decision being appealed was unconstitutional,
illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence on the whole record.
Section 9.06 Criteria for Variances. The Board maintains the authority to grant dimensional variances for the
location (setback), height, bulk, or lot coverage of proposed buildings or other proposed improvements to parties regulated
by the Zoning Code. The Board may grant a dimensional variance by majority vote only after the Board evaluates and
makes written, affirmative findings of fact with respect to each of the criteria listed in subsections a. through h. below:
a. The requested variance is justified by a “practical difficulty.” For the Board to determine whether a “practical
difficulty” exist in any particular case, the Board should consider and weigh the following list of factors:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use
of the property without the variance.
Whether the variance is substantial.
Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining
properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.
Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (for example, water,
sewer, garbage)
Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction
Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a
variance
Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done
by granting the variance

b. The practical difficulty was not created by the unlawful acts or omissions of any owner or tenant.
c. The practical difficulty does not commonly occur in any neighborhood in the City having the same zoning
classification as the subject property.
d. Approval of the variance would not materially damage the character of the neighborhood.
e. Approval of the variance would not violate a significant legislative purpose of the Zoning Code.
f.

Approval of the variance would not reduce the efficiency of emergency services or adversely and unreasonably
affect non-emergency public services.

g. There is no reasonable solution to the practical difficulty other than a variance and the variance requested is the
least that can reasonably reduce the practical difficulty.
h. Any other matters that the Board may find relevant to the variance application.
If the Board decides to grant a variance, the Board affords the discretion to impose additional conditions, safeguards,
and restrictions on the premises benefited by the variance as may be necessary (i) to respond to the concerns set forth in
subsections a. through h. above, (ii) to reduce or minimize potentially injurious effects of the variance on other properties
in the neighborhood, or (iii) to carry out the general purpose and intent of this Zoning Code.

-5-

Article 10.

Temporary Committees

The Chairperson shall have authority to create temporary committees of one or more Members and to appoint the
Members to such committees, which may be charged with such duties as examination, investigation and inquiry into one or
more subjects of interest to the Board. No temporary committee shall have the power to bind the Board to the endorsement
of any plan or program.
Article 11.

Code of Conduct – Prohibited Acts

It is the policy of the Board to carry out its mission in accordance with the strictest ethical guidelines and to ensure
that the Board Members conduct themselves in a manner that fosters public confidence in the integrity of the City and its
processes. The Board Members must, at all times, abide by the protections afforded to the public as embodied in Ohio’s
ethics laws, as found in Chapters 102 and 2921 of the Ohio Revised Code. Board Members must conduct themselves as all
times in a manner that avoids favoritism and bias.
A general summary of the restraints upon the conduct of Board Members, includes, but is not limited to, those listed
below. No Board Member shall:
1. Solicit or accept anything of such value that could reasonably influence his or her decision on a matter
pending before the Board from anyone doing business with the City; or, use his or her position to secure
special privileges or exemptions for himself, herself, or others;
2. Act in a manner, which would result in neglect of duty, misfeasance, or malfeasance in office;
3. Act in a manner that intentionally disrupts Board meetings;
4. Accept employment or engage in business or professional activities that he or she might reasonably expect
would require or induce said Board Member to disclose confidential information acquired by reason of
being a Board Member; and
5. Use, or authorize the use of, his or her title, the name “City of Trenton,” or the City logo in a manner that
suggests impropriety, favoritism, or bias by the City or the Board Member.
Article 12.

Conflict of Interest

Any Board Member having a direct or indirect interest in, or who would directly or indirectly benefit from any
matter, shall disclose this interest and shall, if deemed appropriate by the other Board Members or required by law, refrain
from participating in discussion or voting on the matter. A Board Member must abstain on a vote or discussion of any issue
when the Board Member would encounter a conflict of interest. A Board Member who abstains on a vote shall be considered
a present but non-voting Member. It may be helpful to call the City Manager or City Attorney if any Member is uncertain
of whether he or she either has, or could reasonably be perceived to have, a conflict.
Article 13.

Role of the City Attorney

The duties of the City Attorney include serving as general legal counsel to City officials and prosecuting cases
within the jurisdiction of the City of Trenton Mayor’s court. As general legal counsel to city officials, the City Attorney is
involved in preparing ordinances, resolutions, and other documents for the Council and the Board, reviewing and preparing
a wide variety of legal documents involving the City, representing the City in lawsuits, and giving legal advice on questions
posed by City officials in their official capacity.
The Board may request the City Attorney to draft a written decision approving or denying an administrative appeal
or variance, or the City Attorney may advise the same. In addition, the City Attorney is also available to answer legal
questions posed by Board Members that are related to their duties or issues encountered when administering their duties.

-6-

Article 14.

Executive Sessions

An “executive session” is a private conference between Board Members from which the public is excluded. The
Board is permitted to invite anyone it chooses into an executive session, and, conversely, may exclude anyone it so chooses.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are limitations on the use of executive sessions. First, there are limited reasons
for which an executive session may be called. Second, only matters specifically identified may be discussed in executive
session. Third, there is a specific procedure that must be followed when the Board adjourns into executive session. Finally,
the Board may not take any formal action in an executive session.
In addition, there are a limited number of permissible reasons for the Board to adjourn into executive session,
including the following:
A.

Legal Advice. The Board may adjourn into executive session with the City Attorney to discuss disputes involving
the City that are the subject of pending, possible, or imminent court action, or to discuss legal opinions of the
City Attorney on such matters that could involve future litigation.

B.

Confidential Matters. The Board may adjourn into executive session to discuss matters required to be kept
confidential by federal law, federal rules, or state statutes. If a Board Member is unsure as to whether something
is confidential for purposes of this exception, the Board Member is urged to pose the question to the City
Attorney. If a document is a “public record” and is not otherwise exempt under one of the exceptions to the
Public Records Act, the record will be subject to public disclosure notwithstanding the appropriateness of
confidential discussions about it.

C.

Security Matters. The Board may adjourn into executive session to discuss details of security arrangements and
emergency response protocols where disclosure could be expected to jeopardize the security of the public body
or public office.

An executive session must always begin and end in a meeting open to the public. There must be a proper motion, a
second, and a roll call vote. There is no requirement for placing an executive session at any particular point on the agenda.
The Motion. A motion for executive session must specifically identify which one or more of the foregoing approved
matters listed are to be discussed at the executive session. [e.g., “Mr. Chairperson, I move that the Board adjourn into
executive session for the purpose of discussing pending, possible, or imminent court action.” ]
The Second. After the motion, there must be a second on the motion.
The Roll Call Vote. Members of a public body may adjourn into executive session only after a majority of a quorum
of the Board approves the motion by a roll call vote. The vote may not be by acclamation or by show of hands, and the vote
must be recorded in the minutes.
Disclosing Information. The Board shall treat all matters discussed in executive session as confidential, unless the
Members specifically indicate otherwise.
Article 15.

Propriety in all Proceedings

Section 15.01 Ex Parte Communications. Obviously communications (evidence) that may occur between a
person who is in favor (or against) the application, and one Member of the Board can be contrary to the fairness desired by
the judicial process. Just as a judge or jury is not supposed to be persuaded by a party to a lawsuit, without the other party
even knowing about it, so the owner of an adjoining property (who might be opposed) should not be allowed a chance to
privately persuade one or more Board Members outside of the public hearing process. Such one-on-one communications
are called ex parte communications and viewed as unfair and even illegal.

-7-

Article 16.

Review of Policies and Procedures

The Board should review these Policies and Procedures on the first anniversary of their adoption, and every two
years thereafter.
Article 17.

Amendment

These Policies and Procedures may be amended or modified by a majority vote of the Board Members, provided
that such amendment is presented in writing at a regular or special meeting and action taken at a subsequent regular or
special meeting.
Date
07-24-23
07-28-26
08-28-26

Policies and Procedures
Noted Date. No Details
7.02 Regular/Special Meetings
7.02 Regular/Special Meetings

Purpose
Noted Date. No Details
Motion - Change Regular Meeting Start Time from 7:00 PM to 6:00 PM.

-8-