Evanston committee sends short‑term rental rewrite to housing committee, backs 60‑day compliance push

At its March 10, 2025 meeting, the Evanston Planning and Development Committee voted to send a longer-term review of the city’s vacation‑rental rules to the Housing and Community Development Committee and agreed that staff should start enforcing the current ordinance by notifying unlicensed listings and giving them 60 days to apply.

Andrew San Roman, building and development services manager, told the committee “Currently, there are 226 short term rentals listed, in the city of Evanston. We currently have 14,309 long term rentals just for comparison between the 2.” He laid out ambiguities staff wants clarified — including how to define an owner’s “primary residence,” whether the ordinance should use the term “short‑term rental” instead of “vacation rental,” whether month‑long stays (used by traveling nurses or visiting academics) should be covered, and how to make standards objective enough for consistent enforcement.

The nut of the committee’s immediate decision was procedural: staff has purchased software to identify listings not in compliance and will send notices to those hosts giving them 60 days to submit a license application. San Roman described the proposed penalty schedule if a host does not comply: $200 for the first violation, $500 for a second, and $750 for a third or subsequent violation. He said staff’s intent was not to pursue retroactive enforcement for past stays but to require licensing going forward.

Council Member Herakanes said the housing market drove his interest in the issue: "I have an underlying frustration with the fact that housing is a commodity and that contributes to, you know, rising home costs, rental costs, and I think the vacation, short term, you know, VRBO rentals contributes to that." Council Member Kelly, participating remotely, asked that the city consider extending a prior moratorium until a new ordinance is in place, saying, "I guess I would want to extend the moratorium until we establish, you know, until we establish our ordinance on this." Alex Ruggie, the city’s corporation counsel, replied that the committee could not extend the moratorium at the same meeting because it was not on the agenda but that the council could bring that item back for formal action.

Committee members also directed staff to gather examples from other municipalities and to refer broader code changes to HCDC for a more detailed review. Several members urged clearer, objective definitions in any amendment so staff can apply rules consistently and potential applicants understand requirements in advance. Staff confirmed there are two applications already before Planning and Development and 11 others under review; staff said owner‑occupied applications will continue to be processed under existing rules.

The committee’s referral sends the policy questions to HCDC for a substantive rewrite while the staff enforcement plan — the 60‑day notice and stepped fines — will be implemented immediately.

Next steps: HCDC will take up the longer‑term rewrite and staff will send compliance notices to identified listings.