Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rio Rancho councilor proposes review of horse limits in E‑1 residential zoning
Summary
Councilor Dapson asked staff to prepare materials to pursue an ordinance change that would allow up to two horses per one‑acre lot in E‑1 zoning; staff and councilors urged community outreach and stress‑testing before any code change.
Councilor Dapson introduced a request at a Rio Rancho work session for staff to prepare materials to consider amending the municipal code governing horses in E‑1 residential zoning so a homeowner could keep up to two horses on a one‑acre parcel.
Dapson said the request followed a citizen complaint and a subsequent code enforcement notice after a resident was found keeping three horses on an acre lot where the municipal code currently allows one horse per acre and requires a half‑acre for each additional horse. "I'm proposing to change 1 0 1 54.05 of the municipal cord for e 1 zoning in the following manner. The minimum lot size for up to 2 horses is 1 acre," Dapson said.
Staff summarized existing code provisions and a transfer‑of‑stable‑rights process. Amy, a planning staff member, said the municipal code allows a property owner to transfer stabling rights to an abutting or nearby property under a specific process implemented in 2019; she told the governing body that only one transfer had been fully completed to date because neighbor consent is required. Amy also provided a comparative survey showing that Albuquerque and Bernalillo permit one horse per 10,000 square feet (less than an acre) while Las Cruces permits roughly 9,000 square feet, and some municipalities have no limits.
Councilors raised concerns about unintended consequences. Several councilors and staff warned that relaxing acreage requirements for horses on E‑1 lots could create pressure to extend similar allowances to half‑acre R‑1 lots, and that an ordinance change could trigger requests to reconsider limits for other animals. Councilor Weimer asked whether changing the rule would negate an active complaint; staff said the existing complaint would still be handled under current code and that the homeowner would need to make interim arrangements regardless of future changes.
Councilors and staff recommended public outreach and stress‑testing scenarios before forwarding an ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Amy said it would be useful to hold community meetings in affected neighborhoods and to run planners' scenario analyses on how a code change would affect other zoning districts and the use of the existing transfer‑of‑stable‑rights provision.
No formal motion or vote was taken; staff said they would follow up with Councilor Dapson to explore outreach options and gather more detailed parcel and ownership data for affected neighborhoods.
