Subcommittee weighs legalizing co‑living and the role of SROs to expand affordable housing

Members discussed proposals to legalize co‑living (permissive occupancy rules allowing unrelated adults to share single‑family homes) and to consider single‑room occupancy (SRO) models as part of Arlington’s housing supply strategy.

Speaker 3 (Joe) described co‑living as a potential way to reduce loneliness among older residents and to make housing more affordable by allowing multiple unrelated occupants to share rent and common space. “Golden Girls is basically the PR thing, but this would be for anyone,” Joe said while noting occupancy limits, not family relation, are typically the barrier.

Participants contrasted co‑living with SROs: co‑living permits multiple unrelated residents in an existing house, while SROs are often a building type with single rooms and shared facilities, governed by building code and local zoning. Speaker 4 (Jason) noted building‑code and zoning constraints determine whether SROs are allowed and emphasized location matters: near transit and commercial corridors is more feasible than single‑family neighborhoods.

Members suggested researching other jurisdictions and prop‑tech or nonprofit providers that have implemented co‑living at scale. No formal policy was adopted; members agreed to include co‑living/SRO research in the materials to refine priorities before the next meeting.

Next steps: staff to compile examples and legal/building‑code implications for the subcommittee’s review.