Case study
The terms under Wisconsin's data-center pauses: what the drafts set, side by side
Several Wisconsin counties, towns and villages paused data centers in 2026. This page reads the texts underneath the pauses, the one in force and the drafts that may follow it, clause by clause, and sets their terms side by side.
The question Under Wisconsin's data-center pauses, what do the ordinance in force and the drafts in committee packets actually set, and how far apart are they?
Beyond the published case
The page How one county paused data centers follows Jefferson County's moratorium to its adoption and notes that a template ordinance arrived in the committee's September packet. The page Rebuilding how a county's data-center rules were written reads two drafts in one Utah county against the testimony that changed them. This page does neither. It reads the terms underneath Wisconsin's pauses, in a county's ordinance, a template, a village's draft and a town's minutes, and sets them side by side: what is covered, how far from what, with what water and noise rules, decided by whom, and what comes next. Its finding is about how far texts in one state diverge, not about one place's path.
The question
A developer screening Wisconsin sites in autumn 2026 can find out which places have paused data centers. A list of pauses says where an application cannot be filed today. It does not say what will be allowed when a pause ends. That is being written now, in committee packets and commission drafts, and it is not uniform. What does the text in force actually set, what do the drafts behind it set, and how far apart are they?
Why it matters
A site that clears one draft can fail the next one over. Setbacks decide whether a parcel has room for a building at all. A water rule decides whether a parcel without municipal service is worth a second look. A notice rule decides when a developer's own inquiries become a matter of record. None of this shows in a list of moratoriums, and most of it is not law yet. It is still the best evidence of where the rules are heading, and the dates on which they could change are printed on agendas, not announced.
What we examined
- Jefferson County: the moratorium ordinance in the County Board's proceedings of August 10; the Planning and Zoning Committee's minutes of August 31; and the committee's packet of September 28, which carries the Wisconsin Counties Association's template zoning and notice ordinances.
- The Village of Hobart, in Brown County: the draft data-center chapter as packaged for its Planning and Zoning Commission on September 8, and the commission's October 5 packet with the September minutes.
- Manitowoc County: the Planning and Park Commission's agendas for September 28 and October 19.
- The Town of Warren, in St. Croix County: the Town Board's minutes of July 20.
Eight documents in all. Each term was recorded with its status (in force, proposed or introduced), the body that would decide it and its next date, and Hobart's setbacks were computed against the template's.
The terms, side by side
Three texts set terms that can be compared: Jefferson's ordinance in force, the template in its committee's packet, and Hobart's draft. Values in brackets are the template's own brackets, defaults a county may change. Each cell links to the page it is read from.
Manitowoc County's ordinance is on an agenda for introduction but its text is not posted, and Warren's minutes describe its ordinance without printing it, so neither has a column.
The record
-
Jefferson County Board of Supervisors (in force)
Ordinance 2026-10 adopted: for 18 months, or until data-center regulations replace it, no applications received and no zoning permits granted for data centers. Its definition sets no size, acreage or power threshold; only equipment secondary and incidental to another permitted use is left out.
-
Jefferson County, Planning and Zoning Committee
The minutes list the committee's decision meetings ahead, the next after September on October 26.
-
Village of Hobart, Planning and Zoning Commission (a draft, under review)
The draft Chapter 295 allows a data center only as a conditional use in the I-1, I-2 and I-3 industrial districts, granted by the Village Board after the commission and the site review committee.
-
Village of Hobart, Planning and Zoning Commission (a draft, under review)
Draft setbacks: structures 500 feet from every outer property line, and 1,500 feet from a sensitive use or from any residential, commercial or agricultural district.
-
Village of Hobart, Planning and Zoning Commission (a draft, under review)
Draft noise limit at the property line: 40 dBA or 60 dBC from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and 45 dBA or 65 dBC at other hours.
-
Village of Hobart, Planning and Zoning Commission (a draft, under review)
Draft cooling rule: any liquid cooling must be a closed-loop system, supplied from a public or semi-public water system, never from a private well.
-
Jefferson County, Planning and Zoning Committee packet (a template, proposed)
The Wisconsin Counties Association's notice template: within a bracketed [thirty] days of a developer's first Planning Contact with a municipality, the county is to be told.
-
Jefferson County, Planning and Zoning Committee packet (a template, proposed)
The notice template applies wherever the facility is, in a bracketed list of [city, village, or town], so it reaches sites the county does not zone.
-
Jefferson County, Planning and Zoning Committee packet (a template, proposed)
The Association's template zoning ordinance: by its bracketed default, a data center is at least [125,000] square feet, on [ten (10)] acres or more, with at least [5,000 servers].
-
Jefferson County, Planning and Zoning Committee packet (a template, proposed)
The template's setback: the zoning district's, or a bracketed [200 feet], whichever is greater.
-
Jefferson County, Planning and Zoning Committee packet (a template, proposed)
The template's noise rule: the zoning district's own requirements, with generator testing and other loud maintenance limited to bracketed hours of [7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.].
-
Manitowoc County, Planning and Park Commission (agenda)
The agenda lists the introduction of a data-center ordinance, S.8.175 of Chapter 8 of the county code. Its text is not posted with the agenda.
-
Manitowoc County, Planning and Park Commission
The notice for October 19 lists only the budget review, not the data-center ordinance, and moves the next meeting to a tentative November 30.
What we found
The ordinance in force covers more than the template would. Jefferson's moratorium reaches any facility used primarily for digital data, with no floor on size. The template in its committee's packet would, by its default, reach only a facility of at least [125,000] square feet, on at least [10] acres, with at least [5,000] servers. Why it is not obvious: a moratorium looks like the strictest rule a county has. Here it is also the broadest. If the county kept the template's defaults, a mid-size building barred today would fall outside the rule that replaces the pause. Which defaults Jefferson keeps is not on record.
The drafts sit multiples apart on distance. The template's setback is the zoning district's or [200 feet], whichever is greater, with no separate distance from homes or farms. Hobart's draft sets structures 500 feet from every property line and 1,500 feet from a sensitive use or from any residential, commercial or agricultural district. Against the template's [200 feet], Hobart's 500 feet at the lot line is 2.5 times as far, and its 1,500 feet from a farm district is 7.5 times as far. Why it is not obvious: both texts are proposals for the same kind of building in the same state, weeks apart. A parcel a few hundred feet from a farm field could meet the template's default and fail Hobart's draft by a wide margin.
Only one of the drafts rules on water. Hobart's draft requires any liquid cooling to be closed-loop and supplied from a public or semi-public water system, never from a private well. The template's zoning text has no cooling-water or well rule. Why it is not obvious: a reader of one draft could assume the other says something similar. One keeps a well from supplying liquid cooling; the other leaves water to whatever else applies.
The template's notice clock would start before any filing. The same packet carries the Association's notice template. Within a bracketed [thirty] days of a developer's first "Planning Contact" with a municipality in the county, the county is to be told, and the template applies whether the site is in a city, a village or a town. Its list of contacts includes an email or a call to a clerk, a zoning administrator, an elected official or a chamber of commerce. Why it is not obvious: a county does not zone cities and villages, so a developer would not expect its rules to reach them. Under this template, a first inquiry to a village clerk about a site outside county zoning would start the county's clock. It is a template in a packet, not a county draft, and its brackets let a county narrow it.
The calendar moves unevenly. Warren adopted its moratorium 5-0 on July 20, the night it was presented, and with it prohibited developer non-disclosure agreements, a term no list of pauses carries (the town's minutes, a Word document). Manitowoc put its ordinance's introduction on the agenda for September 28; no minutes say what happened. Its October 19 notice lists only the budget and moves the next meeting to a tentative November 30. Hobart's draft was not on its commission's October 5 agenda, and no later date was posted as of October 15 (the October 5 packet, whose minutes of September 8 record the request to define size). Jefferson's committee listed its next decision meeting for October 26. Why it is not obvious: the date that matters is printed on an agenda, or missing from one, and it moves without notice to anyone outside the room.
What the record does not show
- Every term from the template and from Hobart is proposed. The template's bracketed numbers are the Association's defaults, not Jefferson's choices, and Hobart's draft is read as it was packaged on September 8.
- Hobart's draft was not on the commission's October 5 agenda, and no later review date was posted by October 15. Any revision since then is not read here.
- Manitowoc County's ordinance text and the minutes of its September 28 meeting were not posted when read, so its terms cannot be compared.
- Warren's minutes describe its ordinance but do not print it; its terms here are the minutes' account.
- Other Wisconsin counties with pauses, Winnebago and Sawyer among them, are not compared: their adopted texts were not read.
- Nothing here says any project or application exists in these places; none is in the records read.
How it was done
The ordinance, packets and agendas were read at the counties' and the village's own postings, and Warren's minutes at the town's, through October 15, 2026. Each term was recorded with its status and the body that would decide it, and the template's bracketed defaults were kept as brackets. Hobart's setbacks were divided by the template's default to give the multiples above. No draft is described as law, and no project or application is implied where the records show none.