Board of Adjustment tables variance request to move hay shed after parcel split dispute

The Trenton Board of Adjustment on an unscheduled date tabled a request from applicant Jared to authorize placement of an agricultural hay shed on a parcel that does not meet the town's minimum acreage requirement.

The request concerns an existing metal shed Jared said he owns that currently straddles or sits near the boundary between two parcels; a neighbor, identified in the record as Seth, purchased both lots from Jared’s parents and now objects to access across one of the lots. Jared told the board he plans to move the structure onto the adjacent lot and to add clearance and a fire hydrant so emergency vehicles can access the site. “That big metal shed that’s over there, that’s mine,” Jared said. “I’ll be moving it over where the riding arena is.”

Board members and staff reviewed the town’s land‑use ordinance language and the five statutory variance criteria the board must apply. A staff member read the standard in full, telling the board: “An unreasonable hardship refers to difficulty in complying with the zoning ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property. The hardship must relate to the property and not to conditions general to the area. A hardship may not be self‑imposed or solely economic.” The ordinance section cited during the meeting was 17.170.02 and the discussion repeatedly referenced the town’s Agriculture (A‑5 / “8 5” in transcript) zone rules.

Members expressed sympathy for Jared’s situation but repeatedly said the variance standards are strict and that granting a variance for a nonconforming lot created by a prior division could set a precedent. One member summarized the concern: if a landowner acquires a sub‑minimum lot and then requests privileges that normally attach to a conforming lot, the board must be cautious. Several members said the record before them did not clearly show the kind of unique, non‑self‑imposed hardship the law requires.

During discussion the board allowed Jared and others to describe the property history: the parcels were once part of a larger family holding, the lot sizes and greenbelt status evolved over time, and the candidate shed location would be used for agricultural storage rather than a dwelling. Jared said he has utilities and intends to prepare footings and other site work but that a hydrant would be required before the building could be completed.

The board briefly moved into an executive session for a few minutes; no final action on the variance was taken in that session. Back in open meeting, a motion to table the variance application passed (no roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript). The board asked Jared to return with additional documentation — including a current survey and clearer statements about acreage, greenbelt status and access — and suggested staff or the board could consult the town attorney before the next hearing. Members tentatively agreed on a follow‑up meeting in about two weeks (members referred to “the 20‑fifth” during scheduling) and settled on a 6:30 p.m. start time for that session.

Votes at a glance - Motion to go into executive session for several minutes: moved and approved; no decisions made in executive session. - Motion to table the variance application and request additional documentation: moved and seconded; outcome — tabled. (Transcript does not record a roll‑call tally.)

What happens next The applicant will provide a survey and clarifying materials and may consult the town attorney. The Board of Adjustment will take the matter up again at the scheduled follow‑up meeting; no variance was granted at this meeting.