Council amends zoning rules to allow Gaston County jail expansion

Gastonia City Council on Oct. 21 approved a text amendment to the city’s Unified Development Ordinance designed to clear a zoning mismatch and allow Gaston County to pursue vertical expansion and other work at the existing county jail adjacent to city limits.

The ordinance change updates Table 7.1 and Section 8.4.6 of the UDO so “correctional facility class 1” is explicitly allowed in the O1 district where the county jail sits and reduces the required separation between a correctional facility and residential uses from 500 feet to 300 feet. The amendment also clarifies measurement points for the buffer, requires a special-use permit for any footprint expansion, and permits certain vertical construction to be reviewed administratively when it complies with height and other local rules.

Planning staff said the first part of the amendment “is gonna correct a nonconformity” so the county facility can be brought into conformity with the UDO. The planning commission recommended the change unanimously. The council approved the amendment unanimously during the meeting.

Gaston County’s sheriff and planning staff attended to explain impacts and answer questions. When asked whether the jail had any escape incidents, Sheriff Hawkins responded, “Not under my watch.” During discussion, county representatives said the reduced buffer was calculated so that future expansion would remain inside the facility’s existing perimeter fence rather than extending into neighboring residential property. The ordinance keeps expansion of the building footprint subject to a special-use permit so neighbors will have a public hearing and additional conditions — such as buffering, material choices and fencing — can be negotiated at that later step.

Council members pressed staff on specifics of the new 300-foot buffer and on the yard and landscape standards that would apply if the county brings formal plans back for a special-use permit. Assistant Planning Director Joe Gates walked the council through the drafting changes in detail, explaining that the text would specify how measurement would be taken from the jail building face to the closest residential structure or zone.

Sheriff Hawkins said the county was seeking the change so it could address capacity and safety concerns at the existing site rather than pursue a more costly and complex satellite facility. “If we try to move to build another facility somewhere else… the cost to taxpayers, the security issues, the risk of us transporting prisoners back and forth… would be astronomical,” he said.

Staff and the county emphasized that security elements such as perimeter fencing and razor wire are mandated for a secure detention facility and that aesthetic mitigation could be negotiated as plans are developed — for example, a decorative outer fence or landscaping outside the security zone. Council members asked staff to ensure the special-use permit process includes discussion of planting and fencing alternatives to limit the visual impact on nearby residents.

Next steps: county staff said they will prepare schematic plans and, when ready, return to the planning commission and council with a special-use permit application and the required public-notice process for any footprint expansions.

Votes and action: The council voted unanimously to adopt the UDO text amendment and the required statement of consistency and reasonableness.

Ending: The change does not itself authorize construction; it amends the zoning rules to let the county pursue needed permitting and design work at the existing jail site.