Cook County Planning Commission approves housekeeping amendments to vacation rental ordinance

Cook County Planning Commission on March 13 approved a set of mainly housekeeping amendments to the county vacation rental ordinance aimed at clarifying application procedures, zone-based license limits and which dwelling types may qualify as vacation rentals.

The changes, presented by Neva, planning staff, include updating the permitting location to the county e-permitting site; adding a table that lists the maximum number of vacation-rental licenses eligible per parcel by zoning district; correcting one zone-district alignment error; capping most parcels in the Resort Commercial Residential (RCR) zone at three vacation-rental licenses; and expressly allowing tiny homes and park models to be used as vacation rentals when they meet the recently adopted zoning modifications that require them to resemble cabins. Neva said, “We received no written correspondence or any interest from the public during that written comment period.”

The commission’s approval followed a public hearing at which no members of the public spoke. A commissioner asked whether the three-license cap would affect multi-room commercial operations such as Cliff Dwellers; Neva and others clarified that bona fide resorts that operate as a managed resort remain outside the three-cap because resorts are a permitted use and are treated separately from individual parcel licensing. Neva said the three-license figure reflects the current maximum found on existing RCR parcels: “That’s the most that any RCR parcel has.”

Commissioner Tim described the package as an incremental step while noting the planning office will later pursue a broader distinction between resort-based vacation rentals and standalone vacation-rental units, especially where water-supply and public-health standards differ. Tim said the county has been coordinating with the Minnesota Department of Health on standards tied to potable water and related public-health concerns and that the separate, more extensive revision would address those issues as a larger project: “We’re going to be taking a further look into the distinction between what we would call…the resort based vacation rentals as opposed to the just regular vacation rentals.”

The ordinance amendments also clarify that appeals require a fee and that adoption-language be modernized; planners said the changes will not remove any existing licenses or impose a more restrictive limit on current holders. The planning commission moved, seconded and voted in favor; the minutes record the motion as approved with no recorded opposition.