[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6657234,"mediaKeyId","5083798-7a70c49356622a5ded8260889f218f01","parentId",5083798,"title","Douglas County VHR advisory board narrows proposed changes on code of conduct, insurance and enforcement; some items lack consensus","audioSeconds",4679,"startMs",5221000,"endMs",9900000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5083798-7a70c49356622a5ded8260889f218f01&start=5221&end=9900","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5083798-7a70c49356622a5ded8260889f218f01/thumbnail_5221000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6657234/Douglas-County/Nevada/Douglas-County-VHR-advisory-board-narrows-proposed-changes-on-code-of-conduct-insurance-and-enforcement-some-items-lack-consensus","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6657234-673657a6a67852a002be2599459a441c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770706646&Signature=EFPal1WOgc9C4Qe8L-XnHu2rUw0IbDUc-2ywHYBfxKg1IjDWb4xFAljwPkqYEpnsN091hGiZ3L98gP4QgUkeO2BuA7fnQUyuAJyUc5gwosykizWJDrHbI035RXFoRPvOM-bT6INOar3dI19qSnUZ33lfHwU6IDQOTrm0mn4rw-rhnzaop1jyBe8o4dDA7a0jbk01Fl6fAB8tCImY0ATeCa~8UthSxMGfz1shaGSagHepvG2REPlw1R1whct6oJ-Ac55ylDCDDNTOMQLgtu4C-9BxFW11WMgcPm3InElxEvvV-3Fzmrkdyq3k2olB6QXSKZ3cGdUqjQcYqR42Y5bDnw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Douglas County, NV","date","2025-06-26T19:27:49.13Z","article","Members of the Douglas County Vacation Home Rental Advisory Board spent more than two hours debating proposed revisions to Chapter 20.622 of the county code during the same meeting that heard the appeal for 115 Cypress Way. The board agreed on several structural and procedural changes but split on several substantive items; staff will forward the board’s recommendations and areas without consensus to the Board of County Commissioners.

The single largest drafting change discussed was consolidation: members supported moving existing guest obligations — quiet hours, parking limits, trash removal and permit-posting — into a single, owner-produced “code of conduct” that must be displayed conspicuously at the VHR and included in online advertising. Several board members and county staff said the consolidation is intended to eliminate duplication and make rules easier for guests to find.

Key points the board discussed and the outcomes:
- Code of conduct: The board agreed on the concept of a single consolidated code of conduct that VHR owners must prepare and post. Members debated placement language (\"conspicuous\" versus \"posted by the entrance\") and asked staff to harmonize wording so posting locations are consistently described across all sections of the code. Several speakers urged front-loading the most important items — quiet hours and local emergency contact information — so guests do not miss them in long listings.

- Noise and evidence standards: Members reiterated that county VHR rules include objective decibel thresholds (for example, the noise-monitor guidance cited 65 dB sustained for 5 minutes or a one-time 85 dB exceedance) but noted monitors are only one tool. County counsel AJ Haines and staff said the board can weigh sheriff reports, recorded audio and monitoring data together when determining whether a violation occurred.

- Permit posting: The board directed staff to clarify where a permit and the code of conduct must be posted so responding deputies and code officers can locate them during inspections; staff recommended “conspicuously near the main entrance” and will consolidate the language in the draft code.

- Property-manager requirement: The draft allowed the county director to require a licensed local property manager if an owner proved “nonresponsive” to complaints. Board members were split. Some argued the provision is a useful, targeted tool to fix repeat nonresponsive hosts; others said mandatory property managers can be burdensome and are not guaranteed to perform better than local owners. No consensus was reached; staff will note the split when forwarding recommendations.

- Insurance: Staff proposed requiring VHR owners to show higher liability coverage and to list the county as an additional-interest contact so the county receives notice if coverage lapses. Several board members raised concerns about market availability after insurers have recently tightened lines for some local homeowners; members agreed unanimously on requiring the county be notified when coverage lapses but did not reach agreement on raising coverage limits to $1 million versus retaining lower limits. Staff will include the notification (additional-interest) language in the packet and flag the coverage-amount question for the Board of County Commissioners.

- Emergency-contact response: The board discussed callers bypassing host-compliance and calling the sheriff. Members agreed to clarify a follow-up requirement: if a caller uses the county host-compliance process and requests follow-up, the local emergency contact or manager must provide a callback or status update within a specified time frame (board discussion suggested a short-window response; staff will draft precise language). The intent is to encourage complainants to contact the listed emergency contact first and reduce unnecessary sheriff calls while ensuring two-way communication.

- Fire-safety and outdoor restrictions: Members supported stricter limits on wood-burning fire pits and agreed gas-only fire pits should be prohibited during county or state red-flag warnings. That item received broad support.

- Marijuana smoke and “obnoxious odors”: The Board of County Commissioners had previously asked the VHR board to address marijuana use. The draft would prohibit generation of “obnoxious odors, including but not limited to marijuana smoke” that affect neighbors. Several board members opposed singling out marijuana smoke as a separate category; others said odor complaints are a recurring neighborhood issue and should be explicitly listed. No consensus was reached; staff will forward both viewpoints to the commissioners.

- Parking, scooters and accessory details: The board considered several granular items — scooter storage, advertising requirements, and permit display — and generally favored leaving detailed placement decisions to owners while requiring that critical items (permit, emergency contact, code of conduct) be prominent.

- Density (spacing between VHRs): Members discussed whether the county should adopt minimum spacing rules between VHRs in the same block or neighborhood. Staff noted a legal and practical complication: where multiple permits already exist, spacing rules can create ownership and permit-transfer issues. Board members described the topic as important but legally and administratively complex. The board did not adopt spacing rules and recommended the commissioners weigh whether to task staff with a detailed study.

Planning Commission and next steps: Warren Casey, chair of the Planning Commission, told the board the planning commission will review recommended changes that implicate the master plan or land-use policy. Staff said some items (insurance amounts, spacing and high-level policy changes) are better suited for the Board of County Commissioners and advised the VHR advisory board to forward its unanimous items along with flagged issues that lacked consensus.

Public comment at the meeting emphasized enforcement capacity: several neighbors urged stronger, faster local enforcement and better follow-up from emergency contacts rather than additional layers of regulation. VHR owners and managers urged clearer, consolidated rules and recommended prioritizing enforcement of existing provisions rather than expanding the rulebook.

The advisory board voted unanimously to forward the consolidated draft and its notes about consensus and non-consensus items to the Board of County Commissioners for further action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","VHR Advisory Board | June 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Douglas County’s Vacation Home Rental Advisory Board moved to consolidate renter obligations into a single code of conduct and discussed enforcement, insurance and manager requirements; the board reached agreement on some items but left others unresolved for county commissioners.","taxTitle","Douglas County, Nevada","taxId",56916,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6657238,"VHR advisory board denies appeal of $500 fine for Stateline rental at 115 Cypress Way",4980,185000,5165000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5083798-7a70c49356622a5ded8260889f218f01&start=185&end=5165","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5083798-7a70c49356622a5ded8260889f218f01/thumbnail_185000.jpg","/articles/6657238/Douglas-County/Nevada/VHR-advisory-board-denies-appeal-of-500-fine-for-Stateline-rental-at-115-Cypress-Way","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6657238-f8b9ad271bf687d63bb3a8307a69cab4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770706646&Signature=VoqRnrtduAdKJpI-dg72WGO-bx~qpSrFlRTQ7CUNTyqmPMlRardcz8jCaaE29xpx6BhNY2CnQjEDCfxLMebb2SRiZN2wmnvAGQ39Rc~bcl27jXmSf2vp8ZiDqlP1mejhURL37lME0xTOgHE7OM8BxgkSiIW2YOlNx7je7ervfj~HQRxm~XrezmOEZOJrNcdeSyIm6eFU-iMtYXMVXIyTSsj8v5VIYp25ycK0AkE3yKCsFeFEQz2g8NMM0SbjfZiQuDQ5fCDTI8RmzIyL4yrAnHIMhUTkW1E9Io8BoijYoTiBH4G5HVSh2yYaW1UKuWZOIOs-dIds2tLcx033GUzryQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Douglas County Vacation Home Rental Advisory Board on Thursday upheld a $500 civil penalty assessed to the owners of 115 Cypress Way in Stateline, denying an appeal of a code-enforcement finding that the property violated county vacation-home-rental (VHR) rules.

Board members voted 3–1 to deny the appeal after hearing presentations from county staff, the homeowners and neighbors. The county’s staff report and the sheriff’s incident record drove much of the board’s review; the board also considered the owners’ noise-monitor data and neighbor recordings submitted in the record.

The penalty, issued under Douglas County code section 20.622040, stemmed from a noise disturbance reported to the sheriff on May 3 and from a separate finding the owners had not conspicuously posted the VHR permit at the property. County staff told the board they received the sheriff’s report (time recorded about 00:59) and issued a notice of violation and assessment of the civil penalty on May 12. The code cited requires owners to use “best efforts” to prevent unreasonable noise and to post the permit “in a conspicuous place.”

Owner Richard Norton told the board he and his co-owner, Deborah Morgan, had taken many steps to prevent disturbances and to inform guests of rules. Norton described the reservation process, a written rental agreement, a welcome book and posted signs near the patio and hot tub. He said the property has a noise monitor that “is configured to match the levels prescribed to section 20.622040” and that the device did not register an exceedance on the night in question: “According to our monitor, noise levels on the morning of May 3 never exceeded these parameters. We received no alert.” Norton said their VHR permit is posted opposite the front door and that a copy was added to the welcome book after the incident.

Neighbors gave a different account. Several residents said their neighborhood has experienced repeated disruptions at the property, citing loud groups, parties near the hot tub at night and late departures. Belinda Crawford, who lives directly across the street, told the board she had submitted recordings and that callers to the sheriff’s office had reported repeated problems. Neighbor Steve Arbek, who identified himself as the caller to the sheriff, said he has submitted multiple recordings and raised an additional legal question: his neighborhood’s CC&Rs prohibit business activities, and he asked why the county issued a permit when the homeowners’ CC&Rs appear to bar short-term rentals. County staff told the board that a generic CC&R prohibition of “business activity” is not sufficient by itself to block a VHR permit; an HOA or CC&R document must explicitly prohibit short-term rentals for the county to withhold a permit.

Board members spent considerable time debating how to weigh sheriff reports, neighbor testimony and private noise-monitor data. Several members emphasized that the board’s VHR rules include objective decibel thresholds intended to guide determinations, while others argued the sheriff’s on-scene judgment and resident experience also carry weight. County counsel AJ Haines told the board owners are “obligated to use best efforts” to prevent unreasonable noise and that the board may weigh the totality of evidence — recordings, the responding deputy’s report, owner actions and monitoring data — in reaching a decision.

Formal votes during the hearing included a unanimous motion granting the appellant standing to appeal, and an unsuccessful attempt to reduce the sanction to a warning (the motion died for lack of a second). The final motion to affirm code enforcement’s decision passed by a 3–1 vote; board members did not read an itemized roll call during the final tally. The board recorded the final tally as yes 3, no 1; the appeal was denied and the $500 penalty stands.

The board concluded the hearing by inviting the appellants and neighbors to remain for later agenda discussion on proposed code changes that include clearer posting requirements, a consolidated “code of conduct” for renters, and processes for emergency contacts and enforcement. The board said several of those items will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.","Douglas County Vacation Home Rental Advisory Board denied an appeal by Richard Norton and Deborah Morgan of a $500 fine for noise and permit-posting violations at 115 Cypress Way. The board voted 3–1 to uphold code enforcement’s decision after hearing evidence including a sheriff’s report, neighbor testimony and the owner’s noise-monitor data.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Douglas County VHR advisory board narrows proposed changes on code of conduct, insurance and enforcement; some items lack consensus

VHR advisory board denies appeal of $500 fine for Stateline rental at 115 Cypress Way