Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee tables bill that would open commercial zones to housing and clarify ADU rules

2527664 · March 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Representative Romero’s bill to allow residential use in commercial zones and to preempt certain neighborhood covenants for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) was tabled after extended debate and a 5–4 roll‑call vote to table the bill.

House Bill 554, which would encourage housing production by allowing residential development in commercial zoning districts and clarify rules for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), drew extended discussion from committee members, local stakeholders and trade groups before the committee voted to table the bill.

The sponsor said the legislation seeks to increase housing supply by allowing mixed use in commercially zoned areas and by preempting neighborhood or homeowner association restrictions that would otherwise be used to deny building permits for ADUs. The sponsor described the changes as intended to allow modest multifamily, such as triplexes and four‑plexes, and ADUs without a lengthy change‑of‑use process.

Opponents raised concerns about preemption of local zoning authority, fire and safety access on small lots, preservation of view planes in some districts, and potential unintended consequences for older neighborhoods where lot sizes are small. Brent Moore, representing the New Mexico Association of Realtors, said the association favors local control and expressed concern that the bill mandates accommodation rather than leaving decisions to local governments.

After a procedural confusion about which print of the bill the committee had in hand, Representative Zamora moved to table the bill; the motion was seconded and carried on a roll call. The chair announced the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 4. Representative Borrego explained her no vote, citing concerns about preempting local zoning and lack of sufficient information about implementation.