Evanston committee weighs ban on non‑owner occupied vacation rentals; staff to refine rules and enforcement

The Housing and Community Development Committee on April 15 considered a referral to prohibit non‑owner‑occupied vacation rentals within Evanston and asked staff to return with clearer definitions, enforcement options and alternatives.

Liz Williams, planning manager with the City of Evanston, told the committee software analysis identified 238 short‑term rental listings citywide and about 14,397 rental units overall. Officials said 25 short‑term rentals are currently licensed: 21 owner‑occupied and 4 non‑owner‑occupied; roughly 213 listings appearing on platforms are unlicensed. The city collects a 7.5% tax on short‑term rentals and staff reported about $60,000 in tax revenue for January and February 2025 from licensed and unlicensed platform bookings.

Williams said the city’s existing code (Title 5) defines a vacation rental as a dwelling unit offered for fewer than 30 consecutive days and contains a one‑time‑per‑year exemption that staff finds difficult to enforce. She told the committee that non‑owner‑occupied licenses require initial city council review, then annual administrative renewal, while owner‑occupied licenses are administratively approved and inspected.

Committee members raised enforcement and definition questions. Commissioner Fran Sweeney asked whether owners who occupy a unit part of the year would qualify as owner‑occupied; Council Member Herrera Karras said she favors flexibility for owners with a demonstrable tie to the property, such as a sabbatical or seasonal residency. Commissioners discussed possible proof of residency options—driver’s license, voter registration, utility bills, mortgage statements—or a combination of documents and recommended a supplemental attestation form for applicants.

Several members suggested creating different categories for stays (for example, short‑term under 30 days vs. extended stays up to six months) to accommodate traveling nurses, visiting academics and others who need temporary housing while restricting investor‑driven conversions of housing stock. Trina asked whether a threshold by building size might apply—for example, owner occupancy requirements that vary for two‑unit buildings versus larger multifamily properties.

Williams described enforcement steps staff is already taking: staggered compliance letters sent through Granicus, collaboration with platform hosts to notify unlicensed hosts, and inspections by the property standards team. Staff proposed tightening the owner‑occupancy definition, clarifying the one‑time‑per‑year exemption, and revising the penalty structure (staff proposed a $500 baseline fine for late license submissions with escalations for continued noncompliance).

No ban or ordinance vote was taken. The committee directed staff to prepare more data and draft alternatives — including a potential ban on investor‑owned short‑term rentals, objective owner‑occupancy criteria, and category‑based rules for different stay lengths — and to return after the item is re‑referred from council.

The committee set no formal deadline for a return; Williams said it could take several weeks to months to process current compliance letters and assemble the full staff report.