Middleton Plan Commission recommends drafting data‑center zoning and a 12‑month moratorium for large facilities

Planning staff told the Middleton Plan Commission on Feb. 10 that the city’s zoning code does not explicitly list data centers and that larger, hyperscale facilities are unlikely to be permitted under standard districts.

"There is no data center proposal in the city of Middleton, but we just wanted to make sure that we were prepared," a planning staff member said, explaining research that drew on guidance from the American Planning Association and the Urban Land Institute.

Why it matters: Commissioners were asked to decide whether to create a targeted data‑center zoning district or rely on existing districts and PUDs. Staff recommended creating a dedicated data‑center district (option 4.sub.2) to preserve city discretion and avoid the by‑right entitlements that would attach if an IH (industrial high) zone were used.

Staff outlined constraints and local context that have driven interest in data centers, including proximity to a major transmission line and reliable local energy supply. They also noted that some PUDs — specifically the Airport Road Business Park — include larger tracts (one site roughly 17–18 acres) where a hyperscale center could be sited under current approvals unless the commission acts.

On the question of regulating renewable energy supply and grid impacts, staff said the first stop for prospective developers is typically the utility, which determines whether adequate electrical capacity exists, and noted that Public Service Commission rules can affect how much of a center’s power can be sourced off‑site.

Staff recommended, as a secondary step, considering a moratorium similar to Madison’s — a 12‑month pause targeted at facilities above 10,000 square feet — so the city can evaluate the Dane County advisory committee findings and how neighboring municipalities proceed. "That would give us a little bit more time just to understand the land use implications," the planning staff member said.

Commission response and next steps: Commissioners voiced general support for creating a specific zoning district and for a time‑limited moratorium tied to a square‑foot threshold. Commissioners asked staff to work with legal counsel and an identified internal contact ('Matt') to draft ordinance language and bring back a public‑hearing item. The commission did not take a formal vote; staff was directed to return with proposed ordinance changes for review and public hearing scheduling.

What was not decided: No formal zoning map amendments or moratoria were adopted at the meeting; the commission provided direction for staff work rather than a final regulatory action.