Trenton council approves fence permit for ProLogistix data center amid neighborhood and transparency concerns

The City of Trenton approved a commercial/industrial fence project application from ProLogistix for a proposed data center complex after staff described the exhibit and neighbors voiced concerns about fence height, color and proximity to property lines.

City staff explained that the colored highlights on the exhibit drawings were to distinguish fence types (an 8-foot crash‑rated outer perimeter and an 8-foot non‑crash‑rated inner perimeter) and that the fence itself was expected to be black. Staff also said the proposed fence would sit north of the property line with a small strip of intervening land and would run along the driveway rather than directly abutting neighboring fences.

Residents asked whether an 8‑foot fence was appropriate. One council member noted prior online threats against the site and said that, given the potential sensitivity of stored data, an 8‑foot fence was not unreasonable. Neighbors asked the city to confirm fence color and whether the fence would butt up against other property fences; city staff committed to follow-up to ensure the fence would not create adjacent fence conflicts.

At least one resident requested that ProLogistix be asked to fund related community impacts, including the Veterans Memorial and park amenities. Other public comments during the meeting raised broader questions about the data-center developments planned for multiple Trenton locations and asked whether Metro Parks and Butler County had been notified; staff responded that Butler County had been involved and that Metro Parks had been informed through county coordination.

The council voted to permit the ProLogistix fence application by roll call. The vote record was taken verbally at the meeting. No further conditions or amendments were recorded in the public minutes excerpt; staff said they would follow up on outstanding property-line and exhibit-color clarifications.

The council also heard several related public comments that night: residents raised questions about the scale of security fencing planned around the site and asked for clarity about the number and location of planned facilities; one resident urged the city to investigate community impacts and seek full transparency on parcels, agreements and incentives tied to the project.