Trenton residents urge council to halt proposed data center while officials cite pending reviews

Dozens of Trenton residents pressed the City Council at a Nov. 20 work session to stop or more tightly regulate a proposed data center, citing health, noise and property-value concerns, while city officials said the project is still at an early stage and subject to multiple technical reviews.

Residents described personal and community impacts they said could follow construction. Carl Han told the council he had polled a small sample of local social-media users and said 92% opposed the plan; he asked whether the city would “stop this process, obtain further insight into the opinions of its citizens, and act responsibly.” Mary Blankenship described family health issues and urged council members to visit her home and the nearby school to see potential noise and safety impacts. At least one speaker, Sher Lou, cited the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s 2025–2026 reliability reporting about rising winter electricity demand in regions with large concentrations of data centers and warned of regional grid strain.

Council members and staff emphasized that the city has received preliminary site plans and that those plans must clear internal review before going to the planning commission. Officials said the city expects noise and environmental studies, that Butler County and federal agencies are examining impacts, and that any requests for abatements or incentives would be considered only after those reviews. Mayor Ryan (referenced by speakers during the meeting) told residents that many technical, legal and contractual considerations constrain what local government can require and that some approvals rest with other jurisdictions.

Multiple speakers asked the council to place the question on the ballot so voters could decide; others urged greater transparency and earlier public notice when development agreements are discussed. Council members said the project parcel has long been zoned for heavy industry, explained the city’s rezoning and annexation history for the site and warned that individual council actions to block uses that are lawful under existing zoning can expose the city to legal claims. Residents countered that the city should still consider whether housing, schools and public health would be harmed and that local control should be defended against state-level decisions that can preempt local authority on “infrastructure” projects.

No formal motions or votes on the project occurred during the work session. City staff and council members said the next procedural steps include internal staff review, planning commission consideration of the submitted site plans, and environmental and noise studies; residents were urged to submit comments to staff and attend upcoming public hearings. The council also pledged to improve public communication about development proposals and provided contact information for follow-up questions.

The planning commission and any required county or state reviews are the next likely public steps; the council did not set a date for a vote on zoning changes or incentives.