Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
De Pere staff outline NDA, zoning and moratorium options as data-center talks move to Plan Commission
Summary
At a June 9 De Pere Sustainability Commission meeting, city development staff said the city does not use NDAs, described zoning constraints for data centers, and recommended Plan Commission consideration of a narrowly tailored moratorium so the comprehensive-plan update can address data-center siting. No vote was taken.
At its June 9 meeting the De Pere Sustainability Commission spent its top agenda slot on data centers, as city development staff described how the city handles non‑disclosure agreements, where data‑center uses fit in existing zoning, and how a narrow moratorium could be used while the comprehensive‑plan update proceeds.
Dan Lynch, the city’s development director, told the commission that City of De Pere staff “do not use NDAs and we are as open as we possibly can be” and stressed that most communications and submitted materials become public record. Lynch said developers sometimes assert proprietary claims for income models or closed‑loop systems, but the city has declined NDAs in prior projects and tries to operate transparently within open‑records law.
Lynch explained that the zoning code has no standalone “data center” category and described three nominal size classes staff used for analysis: traditional/regional centers (about 50,000–100,000 square feet), large co‑location facilities (roughly 100,000–250,000 square feet) and hyperscale complexes (about 300,000 square feet and up). He said BP1 and BP2 business‑park districts can accommodate smaller regional or co‑location sites if other requirements are met; true hyperscale projects would likely require a comprehensive‑plan amendment and rezoning because the current 2010 plan designates the available southeast parcels for business‑park or different uses.
On moratoria, Lynch advised the commission that a moratorium must be narrowly tailored to a legitimate government purpose — for example to protect public health, allow time to adopt zoning or utility updates, or to prevent development that would undermine planning already underway — and must be adopted by ordinance with public hearings. He said moratoria are typically time‑limited (commonly six to 12 months), cannot single out a particular applicant and must be actively followed by the municipality (staff work toward the stated objective) to withstand legal challenge.
Mayor James Boyd, who attended the meeting, thanked the commission for initiating the discussion and urged state‑level involvement to avoid a patchwork of inconsistent local rules. Members of the public asked when they could weigh in; staff and commissioners repeatedly pointed to Plan Commission hearings and the comprehensive‑plan public‑engagement process, which staff said is expected to include a Plan Commission discussion later in June.
The commission made no formal policy changes at the meeting and did not adopt a moratorium; Lynch recommended further work at the Plan Commission level, including drafting specific moratorium language and any zoning adjustments, and returning those proposals for further public hearings.
What’s next: staff expects to present moratorium language and related comprehensive‑plan materials to the Plan Commission later in June. Members of the public were directed to the city website for Plan Commission dates and to contact elected officials with concerns.
