“Golden Girls” Occupancy Reform

The title follows Ontario Bill 69, the Golden Girls Act, 2019, which was introduced to clarify that local planning rules distinguishing between related and unrelated occupants could not be used to prevent unrelated seniors from sharing a home. Pennsylvania HB 2109 uses the similar title “The Golden Girls Law” for a broader occupancy-preemption proposal; as of July 17, 2026, it had passed the Pennsylvania House and was pending in the Senate. This model uses the same recognizable framing but is broader than the Ontario bill because it protects households of any age rather than only seniors.

This section states the bill’s core policy choice: local occupancy rules should address actual overcrowding and safety conditions, not whether the people sharing a home are related. Colorado HB24-1007, enacted in 2024, prohibits local governments from limiting the number of people who may live together based on familial relationship while preserving limits based on demonstrated health and safety standards. Iowa House File 134 similarly prohibits cities from regulating occupancy of residential rental property based on familial or nonfamilial relationships. New Hampshire HB 457, enacted in 2025, prohibits zoning discrimination based on familial, nonfamilial, or marital status while preserving enforcement of the state building and fire codes.

Washington SB 6302 supplied much of the original policy framing for this model. The Senate version would have prohibited local limits on unrelated occupants while preserving building-code occupant-load limits, and the legislative record identified the effect of relationship-based restrictions on students, lower-cost shared housing, and the use of existing bedrooms.

This section defines the bill broadly enough to reach the local “family” definitions and roommate caps that relationship-based occupancy rules commonly use. The terms “Household” and “Dwelling Unit” follow the structure of Washington SB 6302, which addressed limits on unrelated persons occupying a household or dwelling unit. This model deliberately applies to any dwelling unit and defines the household without regard to blood relationship, marriage, adoption, legal partnership, or another personal association.

This section prohibits a Local Authority from using relationship status to decide how many people may share a home, while preserving neutral limits based on building capacity, habitable space, plumbing, fire safety, and other objective health and safety standards. That structure follows Colorado HB24-1007 and New Hampshire HB 457, both of which separate prohibited relationship-based rules from lawful health and safety regulation. Iowa House File 134 establishes the same basic prohibition but does not state the health and safety rule in the same detail.

This model differs from New Hampshire’s approach because it does not establish a statewide minimum of two occupants per bedroom. Instead, it leaves the precise occupancy calculation to generally applicable health and safety codes. It is also somewhat narrower than Colorado’s law, which separately permits occupancy limits required by affordable-housing program guidelines. This model omits that exception so program-specific eligibility rules cannot become a general basis for regulating unrelated households.

This section gives the state prohibition immediate controlling effect and makes conflicting local ordinances unenforceable. That follows Iowa House File 134, which bars cities from adopting or enforcing relationship-based rental occupancy restrictions, Colorado HB24-1007, which directly limits county and municipal authority, and New Hampshire HB 457, which prohibits both adoption and enforcement of discriminatory zoning rules.

The 180-day code-amendment deadline is an implementation choice added by this model. It gives local governments time to remove obsolete family definitions and occupancy provisions from their codes, but it is not a grace period during which those rules remain enforceable. California land use law uses a comparable 180-day period in another context when a zoning ordinance must be brought into conformity with a controlling general plan, providing a familiar model for a fixed local code-update deadline.

This section adds an enforcement mechanism that is stronger than the leading enacted occupancy-preemption laws, which generally prohibit local regulation but do not expressly create a private right of action in the same provision. A person denied housing or subjected to unlawful enforcement may seek a court order declaring the rule invalid and stopping its enforcement.

The private-enforcement structure follows the broader approach used in California’s Housing Accountability Act, which allows applicants, prospective residents, and housing organizations to sue and provides attorney’s fees and costs when a plaintiff successfully enforces the statute. This model limits standing to a person directly denied housing or subjected to enforcement and gives the court discretion over fees rather than making an award mandatory.

This Section ensures that if one provision or application of the Act is held invalid, the prohibition on relationship-based occupancy limits and the remaining enforcement and preemption provisions continue in effect wherever they can operate independently.