In prohibition options, providing for prohibitions on parking limitations; and making editorial changes.
Summary
HB2155 would amend Title 53 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to prohibit local governments from requiring minimum numbers of vehicular parking spaces for land developments or structures. The restriction would apply broadly to counties, cities, boroughs, incorporated towns, townships, home rule municipalities, optional plan municipalities, and optional charter municipalities. The only express exception is for parking spaces required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The bill also makes editorial changes to Chapter 5 of Title 53, renaming the chapter from "Prohibition Options" to "Municipal Prohibitions" and adding a new subchapter for "Other Prohibitions" that includes the parking-minimum ban. The measure would take effect one year after enactment, giving municipalities and developers time to adjust local ordinances and planning practices.
Impact
HB2155 would preempt local zoning and land-use rules that impose minimum off-street parking requirements, limiting municipal authority under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code framework. In practice, this would affect local planning boards, zoning ordinances, developers, property owners, and project applicants by removing a common development condition tied to parking supply. The bill preserves ADA-related accessibility requirements but otherwise bars municipalities from mandating a minimum number of parking spaces per development or structure, regardless of occupancy or use.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for reducing local parking mandates and standardizing development rules statewide. The introduction by multiple sponsors suggests some legislative interest, but the overall sentiment in the available materials cannot be assessed beyond that.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be state preemption versus local control. Municipalities and planning officials may object to losing the ability to require parking minimums tailored to neighborhood conditions, traffic, or land use patterns, while developers, housing advocates, and transit-oriented development supporters may favor the bill for reducing costs and encouraging denser development. Another likely issue is whether eliminating parking minimums could shift parking demand onto streets or neighboring properties, especially in areas with limited transit or existing congestion.
In professional and occupational licenses, further providing for definitions and providing for policy for the award of academic credit for military training; and making editorial changes.
Further providing for title of act, for definitions, for prohibition, for signage, for enforcement, for preemption of local ordinances and for repeal; and making editorial changes.
Further providing for title of act, for definitions, for prohibition, for signage, for enforcement, for preemption of local ordinances and for repeal; and making editorial changes.
In registration of vehicles, further providing for suspension of registration upon sixth unpaid parking violation in cities of the first class; and making editorial changes.
Providing for Commonwealth capital improvement plans, for duties of State agencies, for debt limit for capital projects, for prohibition on exceeding debt limit for capital projects and for legislative oversight; and making an editorial change.
In employees, providing for use of force and deadly force policy for law enforcement agencies; imposing duties on the Municipal Police Officers' Education and Training Commission; and making an editorial change.