Council holds minimum lot-size zoning measure for public hearing after public urges housing package be kept intact

Pittsburgh City Council on Wednesday held for a cablecast public hearing a zoning bill that would reduce minimum lot-size requirements across several residential subdistricts, after public commenters and several council members urged that the provision remain tied to the city’s larger housing needs assessment package.

The bill, introduced by Councilman Wilson, would reduce or remove minimum lot-size requirements in several residential zoning subdistricts and alter the minimum lot-size-per-unit standard in multi-family zones. Council voted to hold the measure for a cablecast public hearing (the council clerk recorded an affirmative voice vote to hold the bill for public hearing).

Advocates and residents who spoke during public comment said the minimum-lot-size change is one piece of a larger package of reforms and should not be separated. Andrea Boykowitz, executive director of Oakland Planning and Development Corporation, said she was “concerned to learn that a bill has been introduced that separates out the FAR component of the housing needs assessment package” and that “this component deserves to be considered together with the other components of the package.” Laura Chu Weens, executive director of Republic Transit, told the committee that splitting bills after months of engagement was confusing to the public: “It is impossible for the public to follow this legislative process when yet another competing bill is being introduced after the public has already weighed in about the totality of the housing needs assessment package.” Josh Malloy, chapter director for Pittsburgh United, said the housing package “has had the most comprehensive community engagement that we’ve seen in a very long time,” and urged council not to fragment it.

Sponsor Councilman Wilson said the text before council is the same language that went to the City Planning Commission and that splitting the package was required procedurally because the omnibus was separated into component bills. Wilson argued the minimum-lot-size change is needed to encourage housing production and development that create tax revenue for city services.

Councilmembers expressed differing views on timing. Councilwoman Gross and others requested technical clarification from planning staff and asked for more time to review how the measure would affect specific neighborhoods; Director Andrew Dash, deputy director of City Planning (present on Zoom), answered council questions about the prevalence of substandard lots and the intent of the change. Council President recommended sponsors meet and proposed a compromise hold; after discussion council voted to hold the bill for a cablecast public hearing (the procedural hold schedules the public hearing and provides the council additional time for outreach and staff briefing).

The committee and staff said planning will provide maps and examples showing where the changes would apply and the kinds of existing lot forms the changes are intended to relegalize. Councilmembers said the public hearing period will provide time for community briefings and for sponsors to coordinate amendments or clarifications before final votes.

The matter will return to council after the public hearing is scheduled; no final zoning change was approved at Wednesday’s meeting.