Owners of short-term rental properties in unincorporated parts of Kane County will now have some new rules to follow, after months of discussion culminated in a close vote by the Kane County Board to implement some regulations on the practice.
On Tuesday, the Kane County Board passed a measure instituting rules and licensing requirements for Airbnbs, Vrbos and other short-term home rentals in unincorporated areas within the county. But some board members are still pushing for more — namely, whether the county can ban new short-term rental properties from cropping up in their areas entirely.
The Kane County Board began considering implementing regulations on short-term rentals several months ago, after hearing from a few residents concerned about the impact of such properties on their neighborhoods. Citing concerns about loud parties, party buses, overflowing street parking and the possibility of safety issues, concerned residents asked the County Board to consider instituting some regulations on the practice.
Ultimately, after several discussions, the board’s Executive Committee earlier this month recommended for approval a set of regulations governing short-term home rentals to be added to the county code. The matter then came to the full board on Tuesday for final approval.
Kane County is not alone in taking up the question of short-term home rentals — Skokie has discussed regulations on them and Chicago aldermen have mulled giving themselves the power to ban such rentals from opening in their wards. Lake County has outright prohibited them in unincorporated areas.
The regulations approved Tuesday for Kane County include, for example, the stipulation that short-term rental properties be licensed with the county. Operating a rental without a license could lead to a fee of up to $1,000. The provisions also limit properties to housing a maximum of two guests per bedroom, and prohibit parking things like campers, food trucks and portable hot tubs and saunas on site.
The code also requires, among other stipulations, that the property’s smoke and carbon monoxide detectors be tested regularly, that an emergency plan be made available to guests and that the property’s short-term rental license be in a location visible to guests.
Under the new rules, a rental in an unincorporated area of the county cannot have more than 12 rental contracts in a year, or 180 days’ worth of rentals, whichever is greater. A rental’s owner must also send a letter by mail to all adjoining property owners to let them know that the residence has been approved as a short-term rental at least one week before the first rental in a calendar year.
Violating any of the code’s provisions could result in suspension or revocation of a property’s rental license.
In addition to the regulations on short-term rental properties, the board on Tuesday approved two other related ordinances — one setting decibel limits for daytime and nighttime noise that can be enforced by the Kane County Sheriff’s Office, and another declaring trespassing on privately-owned land in unincorporated areas of the county a public nuisance.
As for the short-term rentals ordinance, at Tuesday’s board meeting, a few residents spoke against the regulations during the meeting’s public comment period. At the prior Executive Committee meeting, too, some residents argued that the county’s proposed ordinance doesn’t go far enough, and that it may effectively give a stamp of approval to short-term home rentals in the county more than it limits them.
Board members, too, voiced some hesitation.
“I think doing something is a great idea,” board member Jon Gripe said. “I think this is … kind of a good thing, but I’m not sure.”
Board member Michael Linder said that he, too, was “conflicted.” He noted that the restrictions put forth by the county on things like parking and number of occupants may discourage some people from using their property as a short-term home rental, but that the policy “puts the burden on the homeowners in the neighborhood to count the cars, count the people, call the sheriff, convince the sheriff that … there’s a violation.”
“This is a complex area, and we have to go slowly on it,” board member Mohammad Iqbal said Tuesday.
Some members of the County Board advocated for passing the ordinance, but said that the county shouldn’t stop there.
Iqbal, for example, suggested that the board pass the regulations, thereby implementing some rules for existing rentals, but continue to consider a ban.
Several noted the fact that the county would likely be unable to put current short-term rentals out of business, but said they may be able to prevent future rentals from starting up.
“I think these terms are probably fine for locking in the people that currently, as of the passage of the ordinance, have been engaged in this business, because I don’t think we can stop them,” Linder said. “But then, from there on, I think we need to move very quickly towards banning them altogether.”
Board member Ted Penesis, on the other hand, said he thought banning them altogether might not be the right approach, and noted that the county can adjust its regulations going forward.
Other board members asked about the specifics of the regulations, like whether short-term home rentals constitute special uses in the county’s zoning code, and there remained some hesitation about giving the amendments to the county code final approval.
“What’s the rush?” board member Clifford Surges asked. “Can we just move this back to committee and talk about this a little bit further and move it forward? Or, is there an urgency?”
Board member Bill Tarver made a motion to send the matter back to the committee level for further discussion, but that move failed narrowly, with some board members again pushing for the ordinance as a needed first step.
“The key thing that this does is to allow us to register these organizations and determine the extent of the problem,” board member Verner Tepe said.
“We don’t know how many Airbnbs we have out there,” board member Bill Roth added, indicating his opposition to sending the matter back to the committee level. “And this is the purpose of this, is trying to find that number out, knowing we’re going to have to make changes going forward.”
The vote on the ordinance ultimately passed 12-9 on Tuesday, but board members echoed the sentiment that this is likely not the last time the county will take up the matter.
Board Chair Corinne Pierog said the board can bring the matter “back to committee where it can be addressed again, when we can talk about zoning and other restrictions on this.”
“This could be amended,” board member Mavis Bates, who said she is in favor of looking at a ban, said of the regulations passed Tuesday. “I hope this is better than nothing.”
mmorrow@chicagotribune.com
