Taos staff proposes tighter rules for metal storage containers; council raises compliance and curb‑maintenance concerns

William Evans, the town’s planning, zoning, community and economic development director, presented a draft ordinance at the June 23 workshop to regulate metal storage (shipping) containers as accessory structures and to address widespread, unpermitted use around the town.

Evans said code‑enforcement staff identified roughly 162 containers on a preliminary sweep (staff later noted about 200 when additional checks were run), and that the town has not collected roughly $80,000 in permit revenues where containers have been placed without approval. He told council members the draft aims not to prohibit containers outright but to regulate location, appearance and safety while giving property owners a six‑month window to bring existing units into compliance.

Key proposed provisions Evans highlighted include allowing one permitted container per lot (residential or commercial), requiring containers to be a single, non‑reflective color with logos and serial numbers removed, prohibiting murals or bold patterns (staff noted the town has a separate mural permitting process), requiring containers to be sited out of primary street view or screened, anchored to a foundation, locked and not connected to utilities, and capping allowed size at roughly 320 square feet (the 8×40 container). The draft would bar containers in the historic overlay area except on state, federal or municipal properties; it would allow short temporary use for active construction (up to six months) and moving pods in driveways for 21 calendar days.

Council members and staff discussed enforcement practicality and community impact. Several councilors noted businesses have legitimate needs for multiple containers, and asked whether the town could provide compliance assistance rather than immediate penalties. One councilor pointed out the town already has a mural ordinance and suggested removing a flat mural prohibition from the proposed container ordinance in favor of the existing mural process. Staff acknowledged many properties currently have containers installed without permits and said a six‑month compliance window had been included to avoid abrupt enforcement.

Evans and councilors also broadened the conversation to curb appeal and maintenance of public frontage and sidewalks. The planning director showed photos of newly built sidewalks, curbs and lighting where tree lawns and planting strips had filled with weeds and brush. Councilors discussed code 15.12.010 and the international weed code, and suggested a coordinated community approach — including possible tree‑planting and sponsorship programs, better interagency coordination (state DOT and county) and use of volunteer events — to address noxious weeds, sidewalk obstruction and visual blight along corridors.

Evans said he would take council comments into account and indicated he would not move the draft ordinance forward immediately; staff will revise the proposal to address council concerns about multiple containers for businesses, possible financial hardship for small operators, the mural question and enforcement sequencing. No formal council vote was held; staff asked for direction and said they will return with a revised draft when ready.

The council asked staff to prioritize clarity about: (1) how existing code (including 15.12.010 on landscaping and maintenance) is currently enforced, (2) financial or technical assistance options for businesses to comply, (3) screening and fencing options for multi‑container sites, and (4) coordination with county, state and volunteer groups on curb and planting‑strip maintenance.