Durham Debates Strict New Rules for Data Centers
The Durham County Board of Commissioners reviews new land use tools for data centers, including a 100,000-square-foot size cap, detailed power and water impact studies, and making most projects go through public, legislative approvals. Commissioners and staff weigh different rules for city and county areas, potential exceptions for critical facilities, and how to balance RTP job growth with equity, neighborhood protections, and long-term environmental risks. 43mins
Was this helpful?
Original Meeting
Wednesday, November 4th, 2026
6091.476
Durham Joint City County Planning Committee (JCCPC) - November 11, 2026
Video Notes
This meeting agenda and materials can be found here: https://www.durhamnc.gov/AgendaCenter/Joint-CityCounty-Planning-Committee-13
Subscribe: http://www.youtube.com/cityofdurhamnc
Like: http://www.facebook.com/cityofdurhamnc
Like: https://www.instagram.com/cityofdurhamnc/
Follow: https://www.threads.com/@cityofdurhamnc
Follow: https://bsky.app/profile/cityofdurhamnc.bsky.social
Listen: https://www.spreaker.com/user/city-of-durham-nc--10123646
In This Video
-
-
-
-
Planning and Development staff outlined proposed application requirements for data centers, including detailed cooling, water and wastewater information, power usage and grid impact studies from a licensed engineer, and redundancy disclosures so decision-makers could evaluate public health and environmental risks before approval.
-
-
Planning and Development staff discussed potential standards to limit groundwater use, regulate generator operations, require decommissioning and site restoration plans, and cap data center expansions at 10% or a specified square footage to avoid loopholes while easing minor sustainability upgrades.
-
Mayor Pro Tem Javiera Caballero expressed strong support for a clearly defined, public approval process for data centers, emphasizing that institutionalized guardrails and checks and balances would constrain decision makers, protect quality of life, and create a fair, easily understood system for applicants and the public.
-
Planning and Development staff explained that they relied on North Carolina School of Government expertise for the legal and land use framework, engaged with the EUB and community stakeholders to shape a responsible approval process and mitigative standards, and had not directly consulted data center developers.
-
Commissioner Wendy Jacobs urged pursuing the most sustainable data center models, including potentially lowering the size cap below 100,000 square feet, while Planning and Development staff explained that the fast‑evolving technology and tradeoffs in cooling systems called for a flexible approval process, ongoing research, and possible future ordinance amendments informed by additional expert input.
-
-
Planning staff and commission leadership explained Durham’s unique development plan rezoning authority and its use of proffers, discussed the pros and cons of tiering data center review by size despite limited correlation between square footage and impacts, and acknowledged that building area was an imperfect but primary regulatory tool available.
-
Planning staff clarified that the city had very limited authority to regulate data center energy use because Duke was a private utility, explaining that they could only address land use–related factors like generator timing, noise, and similar impacts rather than wattage or how power was generated and used.
-
-
Commissioner Michelle Burton asked whether existing and RTP-area data centers would be subject to the new public review process and sought clarification on how the 100,000-square-foot cap related to AI data centers, and planning staff responded that size alone did not determine use, reinforcing that applications would need case-by-case evaluation.
-
-
-
Council Member Shanetta Burris drew on experiences with coal ash to urge proactive, intentional regulation of data centers—highlighting groundwater, noise, light, and equity concerns about where facilities locate—while acknowledging political pressures and stressing the need to represent the whole community’s interests.
-
-
Commissioner Jacobs raised concerns about data centers locating on industrial properties near homes, and Planning staff described using separation requirements from residential uses, legislative approvals, and coordination with the attorney’s office to address these issues under existing downzoning restrictions.
-
-
Commissioner Jacobs asked how data center emissions could be addressed alongside diesel generator limits, and Planning staff explained that air pollution was regulated by the state Department of Air Quality, meaning the city lacked enforcement authority and could only reference, not regulate, those standards in local ordinances.
-
Commissioner Jacobs urged coordination with RTP planners to tailor data center regulations by emphasizing design standards over large setbacks in research campus contexts, while Chair Lee framed the idea as robust architectural requirements and Jacobs requested a Central Pines presentation to educate officials and the community about different types of AI.
-
Deputy County Attorney Curtis Massey cautioned that a 2,000‑foot separation between data centers and residential uses would significantly limit available sites in both RTP and the city, recommending further policy discussion on an appropriate distance and vowing to coordinate with RTP while being transparent about the tradeoffs.
-
Council Member Nate Baker asked whether staff had enough time during the moratorium to research evolving data center best practices, and a staff member responded that the proposed rules would be among the strictest in the UDO, that additional research could still inform a December draft, and that extending the moratorium did not yet seem necessary.
-
Council Member Baker commended planning staff’s intensive work on data center regulations, urged consulting North Carolina Conservation Network on water use, questioned whether a 100,000‑square‑foot cap was appropriate within city limits, and suggested adding broader best‑practice guidance on data centers to the comprehensive plan beyond what the UDO could directly regulate.
-
Council Member Kopac suggested adding state-level air pollution authority over data centers to the city’s legislative agenda, supported differentiated approval processes for critical public facilities, and planning staff flagged the need for council guidance on whether all new data centers—regardless of size—should require legislative development plan approval or be subject to size-based thresholds.
-
Commissioner Jacobs emphasized the need for a nimble, flexible approval process for RTP-related data centers given recent job losses, and Deputy County Attorney Curtis Massey explained that legislative approvals would add several months to project timelines while noting there could be practical reasons to differentiate city and county standards.
-
Planning staff and the Deputy County Attorney outlined key decision points for council, including whether all new data centers—regardless of size—should require legislative approval with a graphic development plan, how to handle expansions beyond a proposed 10% allowance for existing facilities, and what general guidance on size thresholds would inform further research and draft ordinance language.
-
-
-
Council Member Burris raised questions about aligning zoning and city water and sewer extension processes for RTP-area data centers, while a speaker explained that staff were seeking guidance on whether all new data centers—regardless of size—should require legislative approval or if smaller facilities could follow a standards-based path without council review.
-
More from this government
Nearby governments