Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After hours of public comment, Taos council sends proposed vacant-property ordinance back for rewrite
Summary
Residents and property owners urged caution about a draft vacant-property ordinance that would require registration, inspections and fines after 60 days of vacancy; councilors cited vague language, probate timelines and enforcement capacity and voted to deny the ordinance as written and refer it to the Land Use Development Code Committee for redrafting.
Deputy Planning Director Dina Gonzalez presented a proposed ordinance (ord. 2604) that would require owners of vacant or unmaintained buildings and certain short-term rentals to register properties, meet minimum maintenance standards and comply with inspections or face fines. Staff estimated roughly 180 vacant structures within the town’s boundaries.
During the public hearing, multiple property owners, landlords and residents opposed the ordinance as drafted. Speakers said the measure was overly broad because it captured residential owners who are temporarily away (medical treatment, work out of town, estate/probate situations), risked unintended penalties for long but lawful vacancy periods and relied on terms such as “appreciable time” and a 60-day vacancy threshold that invite subjective enforcement. Several letters entered into the record asked the council to exempt owner-occupied residences and to avoid imposing fines that would effectively tax homeowners for nonuse.
Council debate and vote: Council members echoed public concerns about vague definitions, enforcement capacity (no certified building official on staff), probate and estate timelines, and the practical costs imposed on small landlords and owners. Multiple councilors urged better internal enforcement of existing codes before adding new penalties. On a motion to deny ordinance 26-04 as written and refer the matter to the Land Use Development Code Committee for redrafting (and legal and staff review), the council voted in favor. Staff suggested any rewrite include a stakeholder committee, clearer thresholds and an appeals process.
Quote: "We need to enforce what we have now," Councilor Romero said, summarizing a frequent remark from speakers and council members that enforcement gaps, not lack of ordinances on paper, are the immediate problem.
Next steps: Council directed staff and legal to work with the Land Use Development Code Committee and stakeholders (including landlords and local businesses) to redraft the ordinance and to return a revised version for public hearing and council consideration.
