WeVote
Log In

Bill

JA

Bill

HB 6095

Land use: zoning and growth management; minimum residential parking space requirements; limit. Amends sec. 205d of 2006 PA 110 (MCL 125.3205d).

2023-2024 Regular Session Introduced by Joey Andrews and 7 co-sponsors

HB 6095 caps residential parking at 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, preventing higher local requirements and potentially lowering development costs while boosting housing supply.

postponed temporarily
#housing:other #landuse:zoningandgrowthmanagement #trafficcontrol:parking
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6095

Summary: House Bill 6095 (HB 6095) – Parking Maximum in Residential Zoning

Quick Facts

  • Bill: HB 6095
  • Title: Land use: zoning and growth management; minimum residential parking space requirements; limit (amends Sec. 205d of 2006 PA 110, MCL 125.3205d)
  • Purpose: Prohibit local zoning ordinances from requiring more than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residential property
  • Status: Postponed temporarily
  • Introduced: November 13, 2024 (updated status through January 2025)
  • Sponsor: Rep. Cynthia Neeley
  • Committees: Economic Development and Small Business
  • Fiscal impact: No anticipated state or local fiscal impact

What HB 6095 Would Do

  • The bill amends the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act to cap residential parking requirements at a maximum of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit.
  • It restricts a local zoning ordinance from requiring more than 1.5 parking spaces for any residential use of property.
  • This establishes a uniform state-level cap rather than allowing municipalities to set higher minimums for parking.

Key Provisions

  • Amends Section 205d, MCL 125.3205d, of the 2006 Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (as added by 2018 PA 506).
  • The cap is a maximum; it does not mandate 1.5 spaces, but prevents higher requirements.
  • Notable cross-reference in the introduced text pertains to other sign-related provisions, but the core housing provision is the 1.5-space limit.

Potential Impact

  • Housing Supply: Supporters argue that reducing parking requirements can lower development costs (campaign estimates note up to ~$20,000 in per-unit costs) and help address Michigan’s housing shortage.
  • Local Control: Opponents contend the bill reduces local zoning flexibility, potentially misaligning with community needs, transit access, and rural/urban differences.
  • Development Economics: Could influence project feasibility, density, and unit affordability by lowering off-street parking demand.
  • Equity and Planning: May shift emphasis toward prioritizing housing production, transit, and alternative mobility solutions (e.g., shared parking, multi-modal access).

Stakeholders and Positions

  • Supporters (as of committee testimony): Abundant Housing Michigan; Climate Cabinet; Communities First Inc.; Home Builders Association of Michigan; Housing North; Michigan Association of Planners; Michigan Realtors.
  • Supporters (additional groups): Apartment Association of Michigan; Community Economic Development Association of Michigan; Grand Rapids Chamber; Mackinac Center for Public Policy; Michigan Environmental Council; NRDC; Michigan League of Conservation Voters; Rental Property Owners Association of Michigan.
  • Opponents: City of Dexter; Michigan Municipal League; Michigan Townships Association; City of Wyoming (opposed in testimony).
  • Rationale for opposition centers on loss of local zoning flexibility and concerns about non-uniform standards across communities.

Procedural Timeline

  • Introduced: November 13, 2024
  • Referred to: Committee on Economic Development and Small Business
  • 2024-12-04: Reported with recommendation without amendment (per materials)
  • 2024-12-13: Various readings and actions (including postponement)
  • 2025-01-22: Status recorded as postponed temporarily; referred to Joint Committee on Human Services (per some records)
  • Current status: Postponed temporarily; no enactment at this time

Notes

  • The bill targets a specific regulatory cost driver in housing development and seeks a uniform limit to reduce barriers to new housing.
  • As with any zoning bill, local implementation and the interplay with transit, land use patterns, and market demand will influence real-world outcomes.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.