Discussion Draft Chapter 10: General Rules & Definitions

I concur with the other comments in this section and STRONGLY OPPOSE the limitation of a household to only 3 unrelated persons. This would destroy many naturally occurring affordable housing (N.O.A.H.) units, by virtue of the fact that single individuals who cannot afford to live on their own MUST live with roommates. Furthermore, the current limit is set to 6 unrelated persons. I understand wanting to limit dangerous situations with 8, 9 or 10 persons overcrowding a house. So why not tie the limit to a house square footage instead? This clause must be amended.

Could there be a "carrot" for Historic Preservation here? Perhaps adding: except in pre- 1938 (or whatever date you are using throughout) buildings.

Sorry, one more question about Sublots - are they allowed in N5 Districts? Thank you

Terrible idea to restrict residents based on familiar status. Seems unconstitutional under Fair Housing Act. Raises cost for unmarried/unrelated individuals who wish to save money/live closer to work in a co-living arrangement. Violations and definitions needs to be based on actions, not an arbitrary number of related people in a house.

Besides the 6' height cap, are there any additional finished floor elevation regulations? Current code has 3 options listed in Sec.16-28.027

Occupancy limitations should be tied to the square footage of a property, or to existing international property maintenance codes, not arbitrarily assigned.

The limitations to 3 unrelated persons feels like a violation of existing constitutional protections around freedom of association. Further, when considering the unique needs faced by the LGBTQ population, and the lack of support they already face in many communities, this is a direct assault on their ability to maintain community and family as "unrelated" persons.

I'm confused about the reduction in household size here - it seems like we are stepping back 50 years and not considering the significant changes that have occurred with respect to family, not to mention the extreme challenges faced by many Americans finding affordable housing.

Could someone explain the problem that decreasing the number of "unrelated" adults sharing a house is meant to fix? Zoning should address known issues of congestion, traffic, sanitation, "quiet enjoyment" of a home, and other such city problems. If a group of 6 or more adults shares a house that has enough square footage & bathrooms to safely shelter each person, and there's no other issue with safety, parking, or behaviour, what is the problem? Fair housing law prohibits discrimination based on "familial status," and this proposed change discriminates against adults who may be otherwise sharing a house and functioning as a family unit, simply because they are not legally connected to one another. If three couples shared a 3 bedroom house, but only one couple was legally married, would that be 4 or 5 unrelated adults and be prohibited by this change? The proposed restriction can't be applied fairly, and on its face is a violation of Fair Housing law.

This amendment is unacceptable, especially given the current shortage of affordable housing in Atlanta. And it's probably unconstitutional, anyway, as we are all guaranteed the right to freedom of association - which extends to how and with whom we would like to live. It is trampling on personal freedom to say with whom a person is allowed to live. What about equal protections? This seems to say that those who are unrelated do not enjoy the same protections under the law as those who are related. And don't forget that people of color are FAR more likely to share a household with others to whom they are not related, making this change racist as well as unconstitutional.

Although efforts to continually improve housing for so many are appreciated, this will reverse proven progress. Specifically, tackling housing affordability is a city-wide/nationwide issue for which modifications here can accelerate or at least stabilize 1) Allow strangers to share housing (not just in large multi-family), already successfully proven and executed nationwide. 2) Use proven metrics for occupancy– like square footage and others already in-use, that have successfully allowed for safe, affordable housing for so many, privately and publicly. e.g. Houston, Seattle, Austin, New York City, San Antonio, State of CO, and many others. 3) Don’t place unintended barriers on people due to income or other factors who will suffer more severely from this definition and as a result have unequal rather than equal protections for both related and unrelated occupancy. 4) Affordable housing is a real but very fixable problem that creative, caring, committed people and companies have already proven with scaled available solutions – visit them, experience them, talk to the people there and see for yourselves the positive impact it’s having on those experiencing it and those living around them. These definitions/rules feel as though there is undue reliance on unusual one-off (if any) examples rather than basing them on high-majority positive outcomes. 5) Look at how private and other entities have added housing at far lower cost, without taxpayer support, versus outcomes because of these definitions stall and if not stop affordable housing progress, unnecessarily making the problem worse. Partners for Home, the Gateway Center, Atlanta Mission and others can attest to both the challenges and those that have addressed that this would severely encumber. Thank you for your consideration, your efforts and allowing for comments.

This sentence is helpful in providing clarity. But what if there are 6 related people, and 2 unrelated people? That would count as 3 people. That is better than 4 unrelated roommates? Why does that make sense? Further, what about a couple who have lived together for 5 years, but not gotten married? Would you count them as 1 or 2? This is why municipalities are moving away from specific # of unrelated person restrictions.

Please consider reverting this to the previous number, six unrelated parties. It's extremely hard for working class people to afford housing now, and being able to share housing with other roommates is crucial, especially so they can live in areas with decent MARTA bus & rail access. You can reduce impact on neighbors by enforcing existing property maintenance codes, rather than just changing this to 3 people.

The City of Atlanta’s proposal to limit the number of unrelated people who can live together to just three in the updated zoning code is a shortsighted move that hurts the people who keep this city running. In a housing market where affordability is already a challenge, this kind of restriction will push even more Atlantans to the edge, making it harder for students, young professionals, and working families to find a place to live. Let’s call this what it is: an unnecessary restriction that doesn’t solve the real issue. Atlanta needs more housing options, not fewer. When unrelated people share a home, they’re doing what generations before them did—pooling resources and building community to make life a little more manageable. And let’s not forget, Atlanta’s charm lies in its diversity—of people, neighborhoods, and lifestyles. Arbitrary rules about who can live together only serve to narrow that diversity, putting the squeeze on residents who just want to live and work in the city they call home. Instead of trying to legislate how Atlantans live, the city should focus on creating policies that promote affordable and inclusive housing options. It’s time to tackle the real issues, not make life harder for those trying to make it here.

The proposed definition of "household" is unfair - can people not have more than 2 roommates? Why are you trying to regulate how many roommates peope can have, or how many people can live together? This creates unnecessary barriers for people trying to afford housing. Sometimes shared living is often the only option. This is also discriminatory against low-income communities and people of color, who are more likely to share housing due to systemic inequalities. There are also constitutional protections around freedom of association which this proposal clearly has failed to consider.

Thanks for pulling these proposals together. What is prompting the change in unrelated individuals from 6 => 3? I'm concerned this is only going to exacerbate housing affordability issues without tackling root issues / challenges, and seems backwards relative to what other progressive housing policies are doing (e.g. the recent changes in NYC and Colorado to remove such restrictions).

As someone deeply invested in addressing housing affordability, I’m frustrated by Atlanta’s restrictive definition of a “household.” In a city where affordable housing is increasingly out of reach, many people rely on shared living arrangements to make ends meet. Yet, policies that limit the number of unrelated individuals who can live together are out of step with both reality and constitutional principles. The right to freedom of association—protected by the Constitution—should allow individuals to form households, regardless of familial ties. Moreover, equal protection laws demand that unrelated individuals be treated no differently from related ones in their housing choices. Restrictive definitions that favor traditional family structures perpetuate housing inequities, making it harder for people to pool resources and live affordably. It’s time Atlanta reexamines its policies. If we want a city where housing is accessible to everyone, we must embrace shared housing as a viable and necessary solution. Let’s ensure our laws reflect the values of fairness and opportunity, not outdated notions of what constitutes a household.

What goal is ATL Zoning trying to accomplish with this new definition? Was there any public input that prompted this change, and if so, what was that input? In my humble opinion, this is a horrible idea. It will significantly hurt tenants and landlords by limiting the number of affordable housing options in the city.

Fair Housing issue around people of color being more likely to share housing due to systemic income disparities.

Occupancy should be tied to square footage or existing international property maintenance codes rather than an arbitrary definition unrelated to square footage or any health & safety codes.

This makes no sense and restrictions should be based on the square footage of the home and codes related to home maintenance vs an arbitrary # of people. So a blood related family of 10 can live in a house but I can't live with 5 roommates? That makes no sense at all. This definition is outdated and makes no sense in a city experiencing an affordable housing crisis. When I first moved to Atlanta I was able to save money to buy a home because I lived in a home with roommates. The single family home I lived in had 7 or more other unrelated individuals living there. This definition arguably violates Fair Housing because people of color are much more likely to live with roommates. Other states are realizing how much of an impact living with roommates can have on affordable housing options and eliminating these discriminatory restrictions - link

This is a change that absolutely should not be made. And frankly, it shouldn't be limited at all as long as other ordinaces are adhered to - noise, parking, etc. - by the "household." We should not be arbitrarily limiting the places people can live, how they can live, or doing anything to discourage density, especially given the current housing crisis. How would this affect things like apartments and student housing, which commonly have 4 bed units?