Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to allow multifamily use on commercial lots draws split reactions from Nevada lawmakers and local officials
Summary
Assembly Bill 241 would require local governing bodies to allow multifamily or mixed‑use housing on commercially zoned, underutilized parcels. Sponsors and housing advocates called it an infill tool to expand supply; county and municipal representatives urged carve‑outs and local planning discretion to protect master plans and infrastructure.
Assembly Majority Leader Sandra Howtegui presented Assembly Bill 241 to the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, proposing statewide direction for governing bodies to adopt ordinances allowing multifamily and mixed‑use housing on commercially zoned, underutilized parcels.
Howtegui and Jennifer Lewis of the Nevada Multifamily Housing Coalition said the measure is intended to spur redevelopment of vacant and underused retail and office sites—often well served by existing infrastructure—into workforce and “missing‑middle” housing. Lewis said many suitable commercial parcels are close to transit and services and that allowing mixed use could reduce sprawl and greenhouse gas emissions.
Supporters included conservation and environmental groups (Nevada Conservation League, Sierra Club), housing authorities, builders associations, and community planning advocates. John Sandy of the Nevada State Apartment Association and the Builders Association of Northern Nevada testified the bill would increase housing supply and revitalize underused commercial areas.
Opponents and cautious stakeholders included the Nevada Association of Counties, Nevada Urban Consortium, and several citizens who testified in person or by phone. Concerns focused on state intrusion into local land‑use decisions, the loss of local master‑plan controls, and the potential for developers to build “highest and best use” projects without negotiated local agreements on affordable housing. County representatives asked for clarifying language about whether the requirement applies to incorporated cities and to unincorporated county areas; an official indicated the bill should be clear that local zoning jurisdiction governs implementation.
Sponsor and county negotiators signaled they were working on amendments. The sponsor said two amendments were already offered as friendly: carve‑outs for the Lake Tahoe Basin and airport environs. She also said the proposed implementation date might be moved up from October 1, 2026 to earlier in 2026 or early 2025 to allow time for local ordinances to take effect. Witnesses and senators asked for definitions of “mixed use” and “by right” implementation; proponents said they expected local ordinances to retain standards for scale, setbacks and health‑and‑safety considerations.
No committee vote was taken during the hearing. Members asked planners and county officials to continue negotiations with the sponsor and shared a record of pending amendments to clarify municipal versus county jurisdiction and to preserve reasonable local standards for density, massing and compatibility with existing master plans.
The bill remains in committee; stakeholders indicated continued negotiations on specific language and carve‑outs.
