Pittsburgh council members, housing experts debate housing code changes, inclusionary zoning and transit‑oriented development

Megan Hammond, executive director of a regional fair‑housing nonprofit, told Pittsburgh City Council on March 19 that the city should apply an explicit fair‑housing lens and objective, measurable standards as it considers a cluster of zoning reforms.

Hammond said Pittsburgh has long positioned fair housing as a local value and legal protection, noting the city passed its own fair‑housing ordinance decades before the federal law. “We created the Fair Housing Act in 1959, nine years before the federal government did,” Hammond said. She urged council to separate subjective language from zoning rules and to link land‑use changes to habitability and enforcement mechanisms.

The discussion brought together council members, City Planning staff and legal advisers to review a set of overlapping proposals that council members and the Planning Commission have moved at different times over the last two years. Sean Hopper, legislative project manager for the city clerk and city council, summarized the legislative history: multiple bills introduced since 2023 include temporary managed communities, fair‑housing amendments (which included a new interim‑housing use), a housing needs assessment package (with inclusionary zoning, accessory dwelling‑unit changes, parking reforms and minimum lot‑size amendments), and separate proposals for transit‑oriented development (TOD), minimum lot sizes and entertainment‑district zoning. Several items are described in the meeting as “on hold” or “indefinitely held.”

Why it matters: Council members said the package of bills touches competing priorities — creating more housing supply and density, preserving neighborhood character, protecting people with disabilities, and addressing homelessness and habitability issues. Several speakers called for clearer, objective definitions (for example, distinguishing emergency shelters, temporary managed sites and permanent group homes) and for bringing other city departments — transit, public works and PLI (Permits, Licenses & Inspections) — into the drafting and outreach process.

Key points from the meeting

- Pending and paused bills. Hopper described at least five distinct streams of legislation: (1) temporary managed communities (Councilwoman Gross and Councilman Coghill, first introduced in 2023), (2) a council bill to change how community/group homes are regulated (introduced by Councilwoman Kayl Smith), (3) the Department of City Planning’s fair‑housing amendments (which proposed an interim‑housing use), (4) the Planning Commission’s housing needs assessment package (inclusionary zoning, ADUs, parking, minimum lot sizes) and (5) separate TOD and minimum‑lot‑size bills. Several participants said the fair‑housing amendments and community‑homes bills conflicted and are being held indefinitely.

- Objective definitions and enforcement. Hammond argued zoning should use measurable criteria — for example, whether occupants have an assigned bedroom, receive mail at a unit, or have average stays below a specified duration — to distinguish emergency shelters from transitional or permanent residences and to evaluate whether a proposed use fits residential zoning. She also urged that zoning language be tied to the agencies responsible for habitability and code enforcement (PLI, Allegheny County Health Department, and state programs that provide voluntary licensing for certain group homes).

- Disability accommodations and reasonable‑accommodation practice. Hammond and others referenced a recent HUD letter and a Denver case involving an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) where a larger footprint was needed to accommodate a stair lift for a wheelchair user. Hammond said municipalities should treat disability‑based requests differently from ordinary variances and consider embedding fair‑housing principles into local zoning practice.

- Inclusionary zoning and legal limits in Pennsylvania. Council members debated the scope and design of inclusionary zoning (IZ). One speaker referenced a 2017 city law department opinion that described Pennsylvania law as protective of property owners and said mandatory IZ without offsets could raise takings concerns; the meeting also noted competing versions of IZ introduced both by the Planning Commission package and by a council sponsor, creating an irreconcilable conflict that has stalled progress.

- Transit‑oriented development and neighborhood concerns. Council members said TOD proposals are designed to increase density near high‑capacity transit nodes (examples cited: Allentown, South Hills Junction, Polish Hill, the West Busway at Sheridan). Some speakers said residents in Sheridan and other neighborhoods objected because they saw proposals as concentrating more affordable housing without commensurate local investments (grocery stores, libraries, streetscape improvements). Council members and staff recommended early, clear engagement with neighborhoods and bringing transit and DOMI (Department of Mobility and Infrastructure) staff into planning conversations.

- Homeownership, land bank and financing. Multiple speakers discussed homeownership programs (Own PGH, URA/PHFA subsidies in earlier years) and the limits of closing‑cost assistance alone when mortgage qualification remains a barrier. Hammond and others suggested coordinating mortgage special‑purpose credit programs and land‑bank sales to better target affordability and demographic goals.

What council directed (discussion vs. action)

The meeting produced no formal votes. Council members and staff repeatedly directed that: (1) future drafting should use clearer, objective definitions separating emergency shelters, temporary managed communities and permanent group homes; (2) Planning, PLI, DOMI and other departments be included early in bill drafting; and (3) outreach to neighborhood residents be improved to explain uses, management and expected neighborhood investments. Legal questions about potential conflicts between competing bills and whether one proposal might block another under council rules were raised by the solicitor.

Voices at the meeting

Speakers who spoke during the discussion included Council President Lavelle; Councilwoman Warwick; Councilwoman Strasburger; Councilwoman Gross; Councilwoman Kayl Smith; Councilman Bobby Wilson; Councilman Coghill; Councilman Charland; Megan Hammond, executive director (fair‑housing nonprofit); Sean Hopper, legislative project manager (City Clerk/City Council); and Solicitor Dan Friessen. Hammond provided the most extended presentation and several specific data points about local protections and historical expansions of protected classes in Pittsburgh’s fair‑housing law.

What remains unresolved

Multiple proposed ordinances and Planning Commission packages remain in differing stages of review: some are on hold at council or the Planning Commission; others were described as having competing language that must be reconciled. No bill reached a final decision at the March 19 meeting. Council members expressed a desire to continue deliberations with a clearer technical table — including Planning, PLI, transit officials and legal counsel — and to share a simple public chart of pending zoning proposals and their current status.