Loading Glossary… SiteAdmin Apr 9 2026 at 12:22PM on page 3
Answer
Thank you for taking the time to share your comments. We appreciate them.
Atlanta's new Zoning Ordinance for the 21st century
×
Warning message
The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.Zoning Ordinance: Draft V2
Draft V2 is the version of the proposed Zoning Ordinance that will move into the adoption process. It incorporates extensive community feedback and hands-on testing.
The commenting period has now closed. A final version (Draft V3) will then be prepared for City Council consideration.
Thank you for helping shape Atlanta’s new Zoning Ordinance.
Commenting is closed for this document.
Therese Apr 8 2026 at 2:06PM on page 3
Suggestion
My husband and I own a condo in Ansley Terrace and are horrified to learn of the proposed re-zoning for this property. This property is a very quiet residential property on a residential street. The proposal to re-zone the property as commercial to permit all manner of businesses is inconsistent with the character of this property and of the Ansley Park Neighborhood. We vehemently oppose this proposed re-zoning.
in reply to GLORIA's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 8 2026 at 10:00AM on page 17
Answer
Thank you for your comment.
in reply to Andrew's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 8 2026 at 9:52AM on page 8
Answer
The Comprehensive Plan establishes policy, while the zoning ordinance implements those policies. It is not necessary for the zoning ordinance to reference every policy in the Comprehensive Plan.
in reply to Andrew's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 8 2026 at 9:50AM on page 8
Answer
Thank you for your comment.
in reply to Andrew's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 8 2026 at 9:49AM on page 15
Answer
Thank you for your comment.
No changes to boundaries are proposed as part of ATL Zoning 2.0. These reflect current City policy.
No changes to boundaries are proposed as part of ATL Zoning 2.0. These reflect current City policy.
in reply to Andrew's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 8 2026 at 9:48AM on page 18
Answer
Exhibit X, when adopted, will be available at no-cost. The City will reserve the right to charge for certified copies, even if available, as provided by law.
in reply to Tova T's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 8 2026 at 9:35AM on page 10
Answer
Thank you for your comment.
If possible, please send these materials to atlzoning2@atlantaga.gov
If possible, please send these materials to atlzoning2@atlantaga.gov
in reply to Matthew 1's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 8 2026 at 8:50AM on page 17
Answer
Thank you for your suggestion.
Tova T Apr 8 2026 at 1:29AM on page 10
Suggestion
As a Social Epidemiologist and trauma-informed professional, I am formally recommending the adoption of 'Somatic-Grade' technical standards for ADUs . My 10+ years of research into the Weathering Hypothesis and epigenetics suggests that Atlanta’s infill housing must serve as a biological sanctuary against legacy soil toxins. I have submitted a full technical package via email with specific engineering specs for the Sunrise Series.
Andrew Apr 7 2026 at 9:47PM on page 18
Suggestion
Are we charging people to access a public document that governs their own property rights? Shouldn't certified copies of the zoning map be free (or at least provided at nominal cost), especially for community organizations that need them most?
Andrew Apr 7 2026 at 9:46PM on page 17
Suggestion
Aren't pre-2000 rezoning conditions just quietly disappearing here? Shouldn't we at minimum get a clear public accounting of what's being eliminated and who benefits from that clean slate?
in reply to Matthew 1's comment
Matthew Apr 7 2026 at 9:46PM on page 17
Suggestion
My concern is not just pre-2000 conditions. The draft keeps rezoning conditions adopted from 2000 forward in effect, and some of those may still be outdated and inconsistent with current housing and mobility goals. I recommend a clear process to review and sunset or amend post-2000 conditions that unnecessarily limit housing, require excess parking, or block better urban design.
Andrew Apr 7 2026 at 9:42PM on page 15
Suggestion
Affordability protections are geographically siloed into three overlays rather than established as a citywide baseline. This frames affordability as a special condition rather than a fundamental expectation of the ordinance. Curious if there will be a revisit to this structure.
Andrew Apr 7 2026 at 9:40PM on page 8
Suggestion
"Stability" and "desirable" were used for decades to justify exclusionary zoning and redlining. The purpose clause should explicitly name equitable access to housing and anti-displacement as core objectives, especially given this ordinance's direct reach into historically Black neighborhoods like Collier Heights and West End.
Andrew Apr 7 2026 at 9:38PM on page 8
Suggestion
This purpose clause contains no mention of climate resilience, carbon emissions, urban heat island mitigation, or ecological systems. For a 2026 ordinance in a city experiencing intensifying climate impacts, this is a foundational gap. Atlanta's own Comprehensive Plan references climate goals — the zoning code should too.
in reply to GLORIA's comment
Chris 1 Apr 7 2026 at 9:07PM on page 17
Suggestion
Consider this a vote in opposition. Please upzone as much of city proper as possible. We desperately need new housing. The goal of a city cannot merely be preservation.
in reply to Matthew 1's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 7 2026 at 11:41AM on page 14
Answer
Great suggestion.
The preamble to each district outlines its purpose. Upon adoption of the code, these will also be linked to the Development Patterns described in the Comprehensive Plan.
The preamble to each district outlines its purpose. Upon adoption of the code, these will also be linked to the Development Patterns described in the Comprehensive Plan.
in reply to Matthew 1's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 7 2026 at 11:39AM on page 10
Answer
Thank you for your suggestion.
We have incorporated intent statements at the beginning of every specific standard in Ch. 3, 8, and 10. We believe many of your comments are addressed in these sections.
We have incorporated intent statements at the beginning of every specific standard in Ch. 3, 8, and 10. We believe many of your comments are addressed in these sections.
in reply to Matthew 1's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 7 2026 at 11:37AM on page 17
Answer
The determination of zoning conditions is at the exclusive discretion of City Council.
in reply to Matthew 1's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 7 2026 at 11:36AM on page 17
Answer
ATL Zoning 2.0 eliminates any zoning conditions adopted prior to 2000.
in reply to Matthew 1's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 7 2026 at 11:35AM on page 17
Answer
Thank you for your suggestion.
The Comprehensive Plan, which is a key foundation for zoning changes, already discusses these policies and may be used as a justification for zoning conditions. Ultimately, conditions are at the exclusive discretion of City Council.
The Comprehensive Plan, which is a key foundation for zoning changes, already discusses these policies and may be used as a justification for zoning conditions. Ultimately, conditions are at the exclusive discretion of City Council.
in reply to Matthew 1's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 7 2026 at 11:32AM on page 8
Answer
Thank you for your suggestion.
in reply to Matthew 1's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 7 2026 at 11:31AM on page 13
Answer
Thank you for your feedback.
State law places restrictions on administrative changes to a zoning map. This provision reflects significant legal review and input.
State law places restrictions on administrative changes to a zoning map. This provision reflects significant legal review and input.
in reply to Matthew 1's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 7 2026 at 11:28AM on page 12
Answer
Thank you for your suggestion.
As currently proposed, there are no unmapped properties.
As currently proposed, there are no unmapped properties.
Matthew 1 Apr 6 2026 at 11:51PM on page 12
Suggestion
Defaulting any unmapped parcel to the lowest-intensity house-scale residential district hardwires a low-density bias; I believe the default should be set based on adjacent zoning, comprehensive plan intent, or a neutral interim classification rather than automatic H1-R1.
Matthew 1 Apr 6 2026 at 11:45PM on page 13
Suggestion
When a lot is split by a district boundary, the administrative process should explicitly allow coherent development patterns in corridors, centers, and transit-adjacent areas, rather than making it unnecessarily hard to extend mixed-use or moderate-density zoning across an arbitrary line.
Matthew 1 Apr 6 2026 at 11:41PM on page 8
Suggestion
Depreciation/property-value framing can become a backdoor anti-density argument; better language would focus on good urban design, safety, public health, and durable building quality instead of implying that new housing intensity is suspect.
Matthew 1 Apr 6 2026 at 11:37PM on page 17
Suggestion
I would ask that this language also recognize citywide public interests like housing supply, transit ridership, walkability, climate resilience, and infrastructure efficiency, so conditional zoning is not framed almost entirely around the preferences of nearby property owners
Matthew 1 Apr 6 2026 at 11:31PM on page 17
Suggestion
The City should create a path to review or sunset outdated conditions that lock in excessive parking, low intensity, or site-plan constraints that conflict with the new code’s housing and multimodal goals.
Matthew 1 Apr 6 2026 at 11:15PM on page 17
Suggestion
Division 1.4 should include guardrails to ensure conditional zoning is not routinely used to reduce otherwise appropriate housing density, mixed-use activity, or transit-supportive site design through case-specific conditions. I recommend adding language stating that conditions should be narrowly tailored to mitigate specific site impacts and should not be used to impose unnecessary parking, lower intensity, or other restrictions that conflict with the intent of the underlying district. This would preserve flexibility for legitimate mitigation while improving predictability, fairness, and consistency in the rezoning process. Clear standards here would also help ensure that conditional zoning supports, rather than undermines, the City’s broader housing, mobility, and mixed-use goals.
Matthew 1 Apr 6 2026 at 11:08PM on page 10
Suggestion
Sec. 1.2.2 appropriately establishes a Parking Zone Map, Storefront Street Map, and Street Type Map, but the ordinance should more clearly state that these tools are intended to prioritize walkability, bicycle connectivity, transit access, and active street frontage, not just vehicle circulation. I recommend adding language clarifying that parking and streetscape standards should support mixed-use, transit-supportive development and should not force auto-oriented site design in corridors and centers served by transit.
This would better align the code with the City’s mobility, housing, and public realm goals while giving staff clearer direction when applying these maps. Clear intent here would also help ensure that future technical standards reinforce safer, more connected streets for people walking, biking, and using transit.
This would better align the code with the City’s mobility, housing, and public realm goals while giving staff clearer direction when applying these maps. Clear intent here would also help ensure that future technical standards reinforce safer, more connected streets for people walking, biking, and using transit.
Matthew 1 Apr 6 2026 at 10:57PM on page 14
Suggestion
Division 1.3 provides a strong district framework, but it should include brief intent language so the ordinance does more than list district names and abbreviations. I recommend adding language stating that Neighborhood Mix and Residential Mix districts are intended to support incremental housing growth and small-scale mixed-use in walkable neighborhoods, while Urban General, Urban Core, and Mixed Use districts are intended for higher-density mixed-use development in transit-served corridors and centers. This would make the code easier for staff, elected officials, and the public to interpret and would better align the district structure with the City’s stated transportation and growth goals. Clear intent language would also help direct new housing and activity to the right places instead of leaving those policy choices to ad hoc case-by-case debate.
in reply to Matthew's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 6 2026 at 5:57PM on page 8
Answer
Thank you for your suggestion. You make a great point. We will look into updating it.
Matthew Apr 6 2026 at 3:56PM on page 8
Suggestion
I'm concerned about vagueness being weaponized, potentially costing tax payers money. Current language includes the purpose of:
“…reducing congestion in the streets…”
I respectfully recommend revising this clause to reflect the current transportation policy and multimodal mobility goals. I'd suggest the replacement language:
“Reducing congestion in the streets through land use patterns that shorten trip lengths, support transit use, walking, and bicycling, and reduce dependence on single-occupancy vehicles.”
“…reducing congestion in the streets…”
I respectfully recommend revising this clause to reflect the current transportation policy and multimodal mobility goals. I'd suggest the replacement language:
“Reducing congestion in the streets through land use patterns that shorten trip lengths, support transit use, walking, and bicycling, and reduce dependence on single-occupancy vehicles.”
in reply to Nolan 1's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 6 2026 at 10:36AM on page 17
Answer
Thank you for your comment and suggestion.
Nolan 1 Apr 5 2026 at 4:12PM on page 17
This appears to be a mass rezoning of the properties that had rezoning conditions prior to 2000 by wiping out those conditions, without the public notice and going through the zoning procedures required by law for each parcel before such rezoning without conditions can occur. Conditions were critical to the original determinations to allow such rezoning. Removing those conditions without proper legal process is a breach of trust of those citizens who opposed the original rezoning requests when they were filed without conditions.
I suggest that section 1.4.3(A)(2) be deleted in its entirety.
I suggest that section 1.4.3(A)(2) be deleted in its entirety.
in reply to GLORIA's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 3 2026 at 1:06PM on page 17
Answer
Thank you for your comment.
in reply to GLORIA's comment
Jennifer 7 Apr 2 2026 at 7:00AM on page 17
Suggestion
Ansley Terrace was also Conditionally zoned in 1989 - it was designed with large setbacks to fit into the existing 100 year old residential neighborhood. It provides a step down in density from Colony Square to Colony House to Ansley Terrace to single family houses. Please do not convert this to UG3/Rx, it would be antithetical to decades of public input.
in reply to GLORIA's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 1 2026 at 2:01PM on page 17
Answer
Thank you.
Please share your concerns directly with Director Holmes and we (the consultant team) will notify her as well.
Please share your concerns directly with Director Holmes and we (the consultant team) will notify her as well.
in reply to GLORIA's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 1 2026 at 2:00PM on page 18
Answer
They will all be re-adopted with ATL Zoning 2.0
GLORIA Apr 1 2026 at 1:16AM on page 18
Whoops, sorry. I see that all SUPs are to remain.
GLORIA Apr 1 2026 at 1:15AM on page 18
Question
Are any current special use permits being deleted or otherwise repealed by the new zoning code?
GLORIA Apr 1 2026 at 1:12AM on page 17
Thanks for posting the list of the properties that will remain conditionally zoned. I remain concerned, however, that the ABSENCE of a property on this list meets due process requirements as notice of a rezoning to those property owners who currently have the protection of conditional zoning. Per my previous comment above, I also remain deeply concerned that blanket rezoning of hundreds of properties from "conditional" to "unconditional" based on nothing more than the date of adoption is "arbitrary and capricious" by definition--and is thus unconstitutional on that ground as well.
in reply to Bob Friend's comment
SiteAdmin Mar 26 2026 at 11:59AM on page 2
Answer
Thank you for your comments.
in reply to Bob Friend's comment
Jennifer Friese 5 Mar 26 2026 at 7:52AM on page 2
Suggestion
It is not right or fair to rezone a property that would iINCREASE the density that the property is currently zoned for. This would affect many families property values in a negative way.
in reply to GLORIA's comment
SiteAdmin Mar 25 2026 at 3:27PM on page 17
Answer
Good afternoon.
The conditions are available on the main page of this review website and at the link below:
link
The conditions are available on the main page of this review website and at the link below:
link
in reply to GLORIA's comment
SiteAdmin Mar 24 2026 at 8:06PM on page 17
Answer
Thank you for your comment and your suggestion.
We will share this with the appropriate City parties.
We will share this with the appropriate City parties.
in reply to GLORIA's comment
SiteAdmin Mar 24 2026 at 8:05PM on page 17
Answer
Thank you for your feedback.
The easiest way to determine which conditions will carry forward in a particular area is by reviewing the draft zoning map:
link
Zoning district names that include a “-C” indicate that conditions are associated with the property. The map is accurate as of 11/4/26.
Because the list of conditions is updated every two weeks as legislation is approved, we have not released a draft list at this time. However, we will explore the possibility of publishing a list for public review.
We will reply to this message if we are able to post it and you should receive a notice.
The easiest way to determine which conditions will carry forward in a particular area is by reviewing the draft zoning map:
link
Zoning district names that include a “-C” indicate that conditions are associated with the property. The map is accurate as of 11/4/26.
Because the list of conditions is updated every two weeks as legislation is approved, we have not released a draft list at this time. However, we will explore the possibility of publishing a list for public review.
We will reply to this message if we are able to post it and you should receive a notice.
GLORIA Mar 24 2026 at 2:02PM on page 17
Suggestion
I was unable to access any list of conditionally rezoned properties, despite diligent effort, and despite knowing the addresses of some of them. (I know, example, that when the Lenox Road corridor was rezoned multifamily in the 1980s, the rezonings were subject to 100-foot rear buffers to protect the SFR properties that were adjacent to the rear of the Lenox Road properties on both sides of the street.) If I could not gain access a list of those or other conditionally zoned properties, I doubt others could either. I also seriously doubt that attaching an online link (especially one that is impossible for ordinary mortals to operate) would pass constitutional muster as notice of the wholesale rezonings of likely hundreds of individual properties. As set out in my previous comment, given the legal, constitutional and simple fairness flaws in the rezonings contemplated, we would urge the City to retain all conditional zoning, and approach any subsequent rezonings of conditionally zoned properties on a case-by-case bases, subject to the processes and procedures of this code and state law.
View all
Comments
View all Cancel