Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission rejects annexation of Squire’s Addition after public hearing

Lovington City Commission · April 13, 2026
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

The Lovington City Commission declined to adopt Ordinance 617 to annex the Squire’s Addition on a 5‑0 roll‑call vote after a public hearing and discussion about subdivision specifications and lot counts.

The Lovington City Commission voted against adopting Ordinance 617, which would have annexed the Squire’s Addition into the city as single‑family residential. After the public hearing and discussion, each commissioner recorded a “no” vote, preventing the annexation.

City staff read the ordinance and referenced NMSA §3‑7‑17 (statutory annexation procedure). During the hearing, staff and members of the public clarified that the property owners had requested annexation with the stipulation that any future subdivision follow county subdivision specifications rather than city subdivision rules. Speakers noted two proposed subdivision layouts had been discussed—one with roughly 20 lots and an alternate layout with approximately 41 lots—and that the annexation itself would not fix the eventual lot count.

Junior Hernandez, speaking on behalf of a community organization, asked whether the ordinance sets the number of lots. Staff responded that the annexation would not determine lot counts and that, per the owners’ request, the county subdivision standard would govern the subsequent platting process if the city accepted the annexation under those terms.

After deliberation the commission moved and voted on the ordinance. The roll‑call result recorded the mayor and all commissioners voting against adoption, so the ordinance failed. Staff said the owners’ requested conditions could be revisited and that any future annexation proposal would need clearer, codified terms to be placed on a future agenda.

The hearing record and ordinance text were filed as required by state statute; no appeal was filed during the meeting. The commission then moved on to other agenda items.