City staff brief council on state—o‑living law (HB 1998) and potential impacts for Covington

Daphne, presenting for Community Development, told the Covington City Council and Planning Commission on Feb. 24 that House Bill 1998 (adopted in 2024) requires cities to allow "co‑living" housing — defined as individual rented sleeping units with shared kitchens — in areas where six or more residential units would be permitted under base zoning.

Daphne summarized the law's mandatory requirements: a sleeping unit counts as no more than one quarter of a dwelling unit for density calculations; parking requirements may not exceed one quarter of a parking space per sleeping unit (and may be zero within a half‑mile of a major transit stop); and co‑living must not be regulated more restrictively than multifamily housing in the same zone. She emphasized these requirements are mandatory and must be reflected in Covington's municipal code.

Staff told the council that Covington's current code treats similar uses as "dormitory," a label and regulatory approach that does not match the new state law. The code lacks explicit definitions for co‑living, sleeping units and kitchenettes, and current parking standards for dormitories exceed state limits. Permitted‑use tables also do not currently list co‑living.

Lyons walked the council through a mapping exercise showing how the state's capacity‑based approach differs from conventional zoning: instead of a zone‑only test, the city must allow co‑living anywhere a parcel could host six or more dwelling units by base zoning and lot size. Staff's initial screening found roughly 340 candidate parcels, which fell to about 197 after removing parcels with developments already in flight or sites encumbered by critical areas; Lyons stressed that many of the remaining parcels lack sewer or adequate infrastructure and so are unlikely to be feasible development sites without major investment.

Councilmembers asked whether an existing single‑family house rented by the room would become a regulated co‑living facility; staff responded that co‑living is a distinct land‑use category (more like an apartment or micro‑unit facility) and that typical single‑family rentals remain single‑family dwelling units under the code. Building code and occupancy standards — including safe occupancy and sanitation — remain governed by the building code and other state laws, not the land‑use designation.

Members raised concerns about parking, neighborhood impacts and how quickly such developments could appear. Chair noted that, under the quarter‑unit conversion, a site that previously allowed 18 dwelling units per acre could accommodate up to 72 sleeping units, which in the council's view could materially increase local demand on water, sewer and parking. Lyons said the state's rules narrow local discretion on some design elements but do not alter building‑code occupancy rules; she recommended clear public outreach and tracking of co‑living permits as the code is revised.

Staff described the update as an "informational briefing only" and said the Planning Commission will incorporate the required changes into the work plan and then return amendments to the council for ordinance action. No formal votes were taken at the session.