Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trenton council holds public hearing on proposed right-of-way ordinance; no adoption at meeting
Summary
The council opened and closed a public hearing on Ordinance #2026-05-01 to define roadway boundaries for future repairs; speakers asked whether the ordinance applies to unused roads and whether sidewalks/curb costs are covered. Council emphasized the ordinance sets boundaries, not construction funding.
The Trenton Town Council opened a public hearing on May 5 for Ordinance #2026-05-01, a proposed right-of-way ordinance intended to establish legal roadway boundaries that would guide future road repairs and improvements. The council read the ordinance aloud and allowed public questions and comments.
Why it matters: The ordinance would provide legal clarity on where the town may act to widen, repair or otherwise manage public roadways — a foundational issue for future street projects and emergency access planning.
Mayor Erick Simmonds explained the ordinance’s purpose, saying it would give the town legal backing for road repairs and updates on existing roadways. Residents asked whether the ordinance would apply to roads that are not currently used and whether it would require or fund sidewalks and curb-and-gutter construction. Council members responded that the ordinance applies to current roads and is intended to establish the boundaries of the roadway for future work; it does not itself authorize or pay for sidewalks or curb-and-gutter projects.
Speakers also asked about dimensions referenced in the ordinance. Council discussion noted that a 26-foot width is cited to help ensure fire access; one council member described an approach that would allow the town a total corridor of up to 66 feet to accommodate future work while widening an actual travel surface to a narrower, sensible dimension (for example, 24 feet) when appropriate.
The hearing was opened and closed by recorded motions; the council did not adopt the ordinance at that meeting. The council said it will consider feedback and the ordinance’s application to specific local roads, including 100 West, at a later time.
Next steps: The council closed the public hearing and left the ordinance for further consideration; no formal adoption vote was recorded at the May 5 meeting.
