Pittsboro planners discuss zoning options to deter detention facilities and data centers; staff to review permitted uses

A Planning Board member raised zoning concerns at the Town of Pittsboro meeting on April 20, asking whether the town should consider measures—similar to those adopted in Greensboro—to make it harder for secure detention or custodial facilities to locate in town.

"I was reading some news about ICE facilities expanding down here and how Greensboro has amended their land development ordinance..." the board member said, urging the board to "get ahead of that kind of thing coming to town." The speaker did not give a surname in the transcript and was recorded as a Planning Board member requesting further research.

Staff response and legal scope
May, the town planning staff member, said the county moratorium on data centers does not automatically constrain the town: "I think legal receiving the moratorium the county did is not affecting this town," she said, and advised that the town would need to review its own permitted-use tables and consider whether changes—such as more restrictive buffers or a local moratorium—would be lawful and effective. She recommended starting by confirming whether the relevant uses are currently permitted in Pittsboro’s zoning districts.

Board concerns and examples
Board members referenced examples: Greensboro’s zoning changes were cited as a template for restricting custodial facilities by tightening proximity limits and buffer zones rather than fully removing a use. The group also noted that other municipalities (examples mentioned: Apex, Sanford, Wake County) use tailored approaches. One member raised the Tarboro case as a cautionary example where a municipality faced litigation after enacting restrictions.

Next steps
Staff was asked to: (1) review the town’s permitted-use tables to identify whether detention/custodial facilities or large data centers are allowed as-of-right in any district; (2) research municipal approaches (including Greensboro and Tarboro) and summarize legal risks for the board; and (3) return with options for zoning text amendments or other regulatory measures if warranted.

The exchange did not result in any formal motion; the board concluded that staff would report back to a future meeting.

Sources and context: The discussion was part of the April 20 Planning Board meeting where UDO text amendments were the primary agenda items; no public commenters were recorded on this topic during the meeting.